Bangalore District Court
Has Sustained Some Loss vs Trespassed Into His Sanga Property And ... on 16 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.
Dated this the 16th day of January 2016
Present : Sri J.V.Vijayananda, B.Com., LL.B
IX Addl.C.M.M.Bangalore.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C..
1.C.C.No. 34934/2011
2.Date of offence 12-8-2010
3.Complainant State by Parappana Agrahara Police
Station
4.Accused K.Thomas T Kolate
S/o. K. Thomas, aged 47 years,
No.181/3, 1st B Main, O.M.B.R
Layout, Chikkabanasavadi,
Bangalore.
5. Offences complained U/s. 447 and 427 of IPC.
of
6.Plea Accused pleaded not guilty.
7.Final Order Accused is acquitted
8.Date of Order 16-1-2016
REASONS
The Sub Inspector of Police, Parappana Agrahara Police
Station, Bangalore has filed this charge sheet against accused
2 C.C.No.34934/2011.
for the offences punishable under sections 427 and 447 of
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on
12-8-2010 at 2-30 p.m., in land in survey No. 27 of
Kasavanahalli village belonged to Reddy Janasangha in
possession of C.W.1 M.Ramaswamy situated within the limits
of Parappana Agrahara police station the accused with
criminal intention trespassed into it and damaged compound
wall constructed therein by C.W.1 and caused loss to the
extent of thousands of rupees and thereby committed
aforesaid offences.
3. The accused is on bail. On receipt of charge sheet
copies, this court took cognizance of the offences and
furnished the copies of the prosecution papers to the accused.
After hearing on charges, this court has framed the accusation
for the offences punishable U/s.447 and 427 of IPC and read
over to the accused in the language known to him, he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the
accused has examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got
marked three documents as per Exs.P1 to P3. Since C.Ws.3, 5
to 7 did not turn up before this court, by rejecting the prayer
3 C.C.No.34934/2011.
of Sr.APP, this court dropped the examination of said
witnesses.
5. Thereafter, this court examined the accused as
required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the
incriminating evidence appeared against him and submitted
that he has no defence evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused
evidence on record.
7. As stated above the prosecution to prove guilt against
accused has examined three witnesses. P.W.1 Dhananjay is
the eyewitness to the alleged incident. P.W.2 M.Ramaswamy
is the complainant. P.W.3 Appaji.T is the spot and eyewitness
to the alleged incident. It appears, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities the prosecution has not examined eyewitnesses,
mahazar witnesses and investigation officers.
8. I have carefully perused the evidence on record. The
testimony of P.W.2 Ramaswamy Reddy the complainant
indicates that on 12-8-2010 in between 2-30 to 3-30 p.m.,
when he was in Karnataka Reddy Jana Sangha office his
workers came and informed regarding attempt to damage the
compound wall constructed in land in survey No.27 belonged
to his sangha. Immediately, he visited the spot and found that
4 C.C.No.34934/2011.
the accused and his followers were destroying the compound
wall by trespassing into said land. Accordingly, he lodged
complaint to the police as per Ex.P.2. After lodging of
complaint, the police visited the spot and prepared the
mahazar in a place shown by him. His evidence further
indicating that the accused and his followers have damaged 20
feet of compound wall towards western side and 60 feet of
compound wall towards eastern side and caused loss of
thousands of rupees to his sangha.
9. P.W.1 Dhananjay the eyewitness to the alleged
incident has totally turned hostile. Though the learned
Sr.APP., treated this witness as hostile and further cross
examined him but nothing worth is elicited from him.
10. P.W.3 Appaji.T the spot mahazar has deposed that on
12-8-2010 at 6-15 p.m., when he was passing near
Kasavanahalli the police showed him about damages to the
compound wall measuring 60 feet X 20 feet. At that time,
P.W.2 and members of Reddy Janasangha were present.
Accordingly, the police obtained his signature to the
complaint. Due to damage to said compound wall, the
complainant has sustained some loss.
11. As stated above, in spite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the prosecution has not examined other
5 C.C.No.34934/2011.
witnesses on record. It is the specific allegation of the
prosecution that the accused with criminal intention
trespassed into the property belonged to complainant sangha,
damaged compound wall and caused thousands of rupees. As
per well-settled law in order to establish the offence of criminal
trespass, the prosecution has to prove that the complainant
was in possession of property as on the date of the offence.
Further, the prosecution has to prove that accused had
entered into property of complainant and remains there, with
an intention to commit an offence, intimidate, insult and
annoy the person in possession of the property. Further, the
prosecution has to establish that the accused has caused
destruction of some property or made some change in the
property or in the situation thereof did the above act with an
intention to cause loss and destroy of property of some value
belonged to some person. In the instant case, P.Ws.2 and 3
though deposed regarding damages to the property and
criminal act by the accused but the prosecution has not
produced any acceptable documents prima facie to prove that
Reddy Jana Sangha is in possession of the property bearing
survey No.27. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.1 that, his
Reddy Jana Sangha is in possession of the property in survey
No.27 not supported by documentary evidence. Infact, in the
cross examination of learned counsel for the accused, P.W.2
has admitted that he has not given any documents to the
police to show that his sangha is in possession of land in
6 C.C.No.34934/2011.
survey Nos.26 and 27. However, he admitted that in respect of
said property, the accused has filed civil suit in Anekal Court
and he does not know any interim order passed by Aneka
Court in the said suit favoring the accused. He further
admitted that he has not personally noticed destroy of
compound wall by the accused. As stated above, the
testimony of P.W.1, is not supported by documentary evidence
pertaining to possession of Reddy Jana Sangha. Moreover, he
has not personally witnessed alleged act of destroy of
compound wall by accused. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.2
is not sufficient to conclude that the prosecution has proved
its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In my opinion, in order
to believe the testimony of P.W.2 corroboration by other
witnesses is necessary.
12. As stated above, the prosecution though has
examined independent eyewitness to the alleged incident as
P.W.1, the said P.W.1 not supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.2 that, the
accused trespassed into his sanga property and caused
damages to the compound wall and caused loss to the extent
of thousands of rupees is not corroborated by any witness.
13. P.W.3 deposed regarding spot mahazar as per Ex.P.3.
Moreover, the investigating officer during the course of
investigation has not seized any material in proof damages by
7 C.C.No.34934/2011.
the accused. Therefore, having regard to the discussions
made above and the evidence available on record, I am of the
considered opinion that, the evidence on record is insufficient
to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for
benefit of doubt. In the result, I proceed to pass the following
ORDER
This court did not found guilt of accused for the offences punishable under section 447 and 427 of IPC.
Consequently, acting under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused has been acquitted for the above referred offences.
His bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and print out taken by her is verified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of January 2016) (J.V.Vijayananda) IX Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
P.W.1, Dhananjay;
P.W.2, N.Ramaswamy Reddy;
P.W.3, Appaji. T
8 C.C.No.34934/2011.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1, Statement; Ex.P2 Complaint; Ex.P2(a), Signature; Ex.P3, Panchanama; Ex.P.3(a) Signature of P.W.2;
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Nil List of witnesses examined, documents & materials marked on behalf of the defence:
Nil IX ADDL.C.M.M. Bangalore.