Telangana High Court
Arkuti Rajamallu , vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 29 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1346 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/Accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, in CC.No.11/2006 vide Judgment dated 16.07.2008 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code; and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984. Both the above sentences under two counts shall run concurrently. Further, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused in another case vide CC.No.2/2006 for similar violation shall also run concurrently. In the appeal filed by the accused in Crl.A.No.66 of 2008 questioning CC.No.11 of 2006, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/Accused is before this Court.
2. Heard both sides.
2
3. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner/accused is that PW.2 who is the son of PW3 and the accused are residents of same village and are adjacent cultivators. PW2 and PW3 have been irrigating their agricultural fields with the water from the field channel of SRSP canal which is passing through the land of the accused. The allegation against the accused is that on 25.12.2005 at 2.00 P.M., the accused has damaged the said field channel through which PW2 and PW3 are irrigating their agricultural fields and thereby the accused diminished the supply of water to the fields of PW2 and PW3. A complaint was also given by PW2 in respect of the same and the accused was also apprehended and sent to the Court for judicial custody. Subsequently, the accused again damaged the field channel prior to 19.01.2006 in Sy.No.262 (subject matter of CC.No.2/2006) through which channel PWs.2 and 3 were irrigating their fields and thereby the accused caused damaged to the water source under control of SRSP Department and the said incident was witnessed by PWs.4 and 5.
4. The Police investigated the case and apprehended the accused on 20.01.2006 and was sent by the Court to judicial custody. After completion of entire investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused.
3
5. On 08.02.2006, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 430 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act.
6. The trial Court examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. None were examined on behalf of defence and no documents were marked. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused and convicted the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences under Sections 430 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of the PDPP Act.
7. The only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there is no eye-witness to the alleged mis-chief that was committed.
8. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence, both direct and circumstantial evidence and found that the petitioner was responsible for filling up the water ways/canals with mud which was passing through the accused fields to the complainant fields. The said water flow was stopped in the fields of the revision petitioner by filling up mud. The logical conclusion would be that the petitioner is 4 responsible, in the absence of any proof to show that any other person had deliberately trespassed into the fields of the accused and caused such obstruction by filling mud, I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Courts below.
9. However, keeping in view that the petitioner is now aged around 55 years and according to the counsel he has suffered spinal cord injury resulting in disability, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner to the period already undergone.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.04.2024 tk 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1346 OF 2009 Date: 29.04.2024 tk