The court clarified that even in cases of a bona fide dispute over property, parties cannot take the law into their own hands and cause damage to property. Such actions constitute mischief under Section 427 IPC.

1. The petitioneraccused have preferred the revision, challenging, the conviction and sentence imposed on them in C.A.No. 193 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Session Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judicial Magistrate, Jayakondam in C.C.No. 164 of 1992 in which, the petitioners were found guilty under section 427, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

The respondent aged about 70 years filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence under section 427 IPC. The complainant is owning landed property in survey No.285 in Malsinthamani Village. Adjacent to this land, about one acre of land belonged to one Velayutham Chettair and it was also in the enjoyment of the complaint and her husband for a period of 15 years. There was a north south fence dividing these properties for the last 50 years. On the east and north of the fence, there are fruit bearing trees. On 4. 92 the petitioners alleging that they have purchased the land from the Chettiar removed the fence to a distance of 115 feet and caused damage. They also attempted to cause damage to the fruit bearing trees and thereafter, the respondent sent a complaint to the high police officials. As a result of the cutting of the fence, damage has been caused to the extent of Rs.500.

3. The respondentcomplainant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined two other witnesses. Neither any documents nor any witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioners. The trial court found the petitioners guilty under section 427, IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed and aggrieved against this, they have come forward with the present revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of the respondents. When the land has been purchased by the petitioners, the fence is situated within their property and they have got every right to cut the same. The conflicting version in the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 was not properly considered. P.W.3 appears to be a chance witness. The occurrence took place on 4. 92 whereas the complaint was laid after 19 days. There is no responsible explanation on the party of the respondent relating to this delay. The main ingredient for awarding conviction under section 427 IPC is also absent. It is only a bonafide dispute and no criminal action can be laid for the same.

5. There is no dispute that there is a dividing fence in between the property purchased by the petitioners and the property owned by the complaintrespondent. The fence was existing for the last 50 years is also not seriously disputed. It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the fence has been removed to a distance of about 115 feet by the petitioners. It appears that the land belonging to Velayudham Chettiar was in the possession and enjoyment of the respondent for a considerable period of time and it has been purchased by the petitioners. On 4. 92 only, the incident relating to cutting of fence took place. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner raised number of points, he had restricted his arguments relating to two matters only.

6. The first contention raised by the petitioners is that they have removed the fence since it is situated within the property purchased by them and at best, it is only an invasion of civil right and no criminal section can be launched by the respondent. I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners. The property now said to have been purchased by the petitioners was admittedly enjoyed by the respondent at one point of time and, as such, all the particulars should have been known to P.W.1. The fact that the fence was cut by the petitioners is not disputed. Adj