Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by the complainant -petitioner against the judgment dated 31.7.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2012, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant -petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 6.3.2012 passed by ACJM, Deeg (Bharatpur) in Criminal Case No. 408/2005 acquitting the accused respondents No. 2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 447 and 427 IPC Brief facts of the case are as under: - - On 17.10.2005, the complainant - petitioner lodged FIR No. 576/2005 at Police Station, Deeg (Bharatpur) against the accused respondents No. 2 and 3 under Sections 143, 427, 447 IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondents under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused respondents and framed charges against them under Section 447 and 427 IPC. The accused respondents denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondents were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 6.3.2012 acquitting the accused respondents. Against the said judgment, the complainant petitioner filed criminal appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 31.7.2012.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment dated 31.7.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg, District Bharatpur, the present criminal revision petition has been filed by the complainant -petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that before passing the impugned judgments of acquittal, the learned courts below have failed to appreciate that in his statement PW -6 Naim Singh, who is an independent witness has clearly stated in his examination -in -chief that the accused respondents destroyed the crop standing in the field of complainant/petitioner. The said version of the PW -6 corroborates the contents of FIR and statement of complainant Purushottam. In such circumstances, commission of offence by the accused respondents is clearly proved, but the learned courts below have totally overlooked this aspect of the matter and have committed grave error and illegality in passing the impugned judgments. He has further contended that the learned courts below have also failed to appreciate that PW -3 Suman Prakash, the investigating officer, prepared the site plan (Ex. -P3), in which Khasra No. 1762 have been shown divided in two parts and after due investigation, found the offence under Section 447 and 427 IPC, to have been committed by the accused respondents. In such circumstances, the impugned judgments of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserve to be quashed and set -aside. He has further contended that before passing the impugned judgments, learned courts below have not properly appreciated that the Khasra No. 1762 where the incident occurred, is in exclusive possession of the complainant -petitioner, which fact is also proved by the evidence of PW -1, PW -3 and PW -6 as also by Ex. P -3 (site Plan). In such circumstances, the findings of the learned courts below are perverse, illegal, erroneous and deserve to be set -aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgments passed by the courts below and stated the same to be just and proper.;