- (1.) THE above appeal is by the complainant in a private complaint against the respondents before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, taken on file by him as C.C.No.6605 of 1982 for offences under Ss.448 and 427,I.P.C. and is directed against the judgment of the above court acquitting the respondents herein of the above offences.
(2.) THE appellant preferred a private complaint against the four respondents on the allegation that from P.W.2, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 to 4, he purchased a house in dcor No.22. North Boag Road, T.Nagar, Madras 17 by a registered sale deed dated 16.7.82 and that the property, having been purchased by P.W.2, was the exclusive property of P.W.2 and that the respondents had no manner of right, or title to it and on 16.7.82 after the execution of the sale deed Ex.P.3, P.W.2 took him to the scene house at about 4.30 p.m. and put him in possession of the house and P.W.2 asked the respondents to vacate the house, which the respondents refused and the respondents flew into rage and intimidated and caused criminal annoyance and also showed criminal force and had thereby committed an offence punishable under S.448,I.P.C. THEre was a further averment that on 24.7.1982, the appellant came to know that on the previous day a mango tree in the premises had been cut and removed by the respondents, and had, therefore, committed an offence under S. 427,I.P.C. During trial, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6, were marked. The respondents, when questioned, contended that they did not commit any offence and that they were not aware that the scene house had been sold. The respondents did not examine any witness on their behalf and no documents was marked on their side. The trial court, on the evidence placed before it, found that though the respondents had abused P.Ws.1 and 2 and had asked them to leave the scene house, yet their conduct did not attract S. 448,I.P.C., and that, therefore, they were not guilty under that section. The trial court also found that there was no material to show that the respondents had cut the mango tree and that, therefore, the offence of S. 427, I.P.C. also had not been made out. All the respondents were acquitted of all the charges. The aggrieved complainant has preferred this appeal.
(3.) THIRU N. Natarajan, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the trial court, having specifically found that the respondents, who were in occupation of the scene house, had abused P.Ws. 1 and 3 and had sent them out and had also refused to vacate the house, should have also found that the ingredients of S. 448,I.P.C. were made out. According to the learned counsel the offence would fall under the second limb of S. 441,I.P.C., which is the definition section, in that the respondents, though their initial entry in the scene house was lawful, had unlawfully remained there with intent to intimidate, insult and annoy P.Ws. 1 and 2. Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant had clearly proved that the scene house belonged exclusively to P.W.2, having been purchased by him from out of his own funds the respondents had no right of their own. The suggestion put to P.W.2, that the second respondent had made some improvements and had, therefore, some claim over the scene house had not been suggested to P.W.I., and should, therefore, be rejected. Per contra, Thiru Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that on the day of the occurrence it was the appellant who had forcibly tried to take possession of the scene house by throwing the respondents out of it and for that purpose the appellant had brought two of his brothers and the quarrel that ensued was the subject matter of a criminal prosecution against the brothers of the appellant in which the said brothers had admitted the guilt and had paid the fine and that, therefore, the prosecution case that it was the respondents who committed the offence could not be accepted.;