M.Seetharama Murti, J.

This Criminal Revision Case under sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the CrPC, for short) by the petitioner/accused is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2006 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, (Judge, Fast Track Court) Markapur of Prakasam Sessions Division confirming the conviction/ sentence for the offence punishable under Section 295 of the IPC.

Be it noted that the accused was originally charge sheeted and was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 295-A of the IPC. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, by his judgment dated 16.11.2006, passed in CC No.149 of 2002 had found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 295 and 427 of the IPC but not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC. However, in the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC as well, but confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 295 of the IPC. Therefore, the accused had preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. I have carefully perused the material record.

3. Now, the point for determination is-

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under Section 295 of the IPC?

4. POINT:

4. (a) The case of the prosecution as unfolded during the trial may be stated, in brief, as follows:

"The accused was removed from the post of Catechist in R.C. Mission Church at Racherla for certain irregularities and fabricating the records to grab the Mission property. PW1 is the Parish Priest, Holy Family Church at R.C. Mission, Giddalur. The R.C. Mission has got Ac.0.20 cents of land in Sy.No.238/B near Racherla bus-stand and the said site is having a compound wall. A statue of Mary Matha (Mother Mary) carrying an infant Jesus in her hand was erected in the said site and daily prayers are being offered in that holy land. The then Priest had purchased the said site from Yedamakanti Obul Reddy on 13.12.1937. There is a church in that site. The duties of the Catechist are to offer prayers and look after the property. Pullaiah, the father of the accused had worked as Catechist for the R.C. Mission and he used to offer prayers in the said site. After the death of his father, the accused was appointed as Catechist, after he had undergone the training. The accused had managed the revenue officials and created documents with an intention to grab the site and had tried to sell away the property. When the persons, who had intended to purchase the property, had approached the father of Parish Christ, an objection was raised stating that the property is that of the church. The Mandal Revenue Officer was addressed for cancellation of the passbook; and after enquiry, it was informed that the site belongs to the church and that the entries in the revenue records are false. A suit was filed on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur in respect of the site and status quo orders were obtained. On the dismissal of the suit, an appeal was filed. The accused had constructed shop rooms in that site and had leased out the same and is receiving rents in thousands of rupees. While so, on 18.11.2001, PWs 2 and 3 came to PW1 and informed him that on the previous night, the accused had demolished the statue of Mary Matha and they had noticed a tear/crack on the right side of the statue of the Mary Matha. Immediately, PW1 had visited the scene and found that the right hand of the statue was broken and had come to know that the accused with the help of the Revenue Inspector, by name Venkateswarlu, had abused the stat