O R D E R

Heard Sri H. Jayanth Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 8-4-2013 passed by the II Additional Civil judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi, in Criminal Case No.4014 of 2010 and confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi, in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2013 dated 25-4-2015, wherein both the Courts below passed concurrent findings against the petitioners and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent is the complainant-State.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on

8-8-2010 at about 1:00 p.m., PW1-Laxmana Poojary lodged a complaint alleging that on 7-8-2010 at about 11.00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the disputed land bearing Survey No.60/4 BP 13 measuring 0.43 cents situated at Yenagudde Village, Udupi, and destroyed the paddy crops planted by him by running a bulldozer and on questioning, they told that the dispute is pending before the Land Tribunal and the said land belongs to them and also they gave life threat to him and thereby, caused mischief to him. Hence, this led to registration of the F.I.R. and investigation.

5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the trial Court took cognizance, framed the charge against accused Nos.1 and 2. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all, examined eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked sixteen documents as per Exs.P1 to P16. For the defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.

7. Assessing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case and accordingly, convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and they were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the IPC with default imprisonment.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by both the Courts below is against the settled principles of law; both the Courts below have failed to understand and appreciate the provisions of law as required under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. It is contended that the complainant-CW1 has not stepped into a witness box to prove the contents of the complaint. PW1, being the son of CW1, has stated about the contents of the complaint and the complaint has been marked through PW1. It is contended that as per the complaint dated 8-8-2010, paddy crops have been destroyed by running the bulldozer, but the contents of the charge- sheet discloses that accused Nos.1 and 2 used tiller to destroy the paddy crops and as per spot mahazar, JCB has been used to destroy the paddy crops and as per the contents of the complaint, a tractor has been used for destroying the paddy crops. Hence, there are contradiction