The court affirmed that actions taken for public utility maintenance do not constitute criminal trespass or damage, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal allegations.

JUDGMENT :

(M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.)

The appellant as complainant filed a private complaint against the respondents in C.C.No.43 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore (Trial Court) and the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 05.03.2008 acquitting the respondents. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.

2.The case projected by the appellant is that the appellant and the respondents were residing at Etimadai Village, Coimbatore District. In the said village, the 1^st respondent encroached the Government Poramboke land, cut the trees grown in the land and benefited out the same. In this regard, the appellant lodged a complaint to the concerned authority against the 1^st respondent, due to which, there was enmity between them. The appellant stocked the banana trees in his land. The 1^st respondent asked the appellant to clear the same and forced the appellant to give 5 feet of land for his usage. Thereafter, the appellant printed hand bills against the 1^st respondent accusing his encroachment, illegal activities and lodged Police complaint. Keeping this in mind, on 15.11.2005, at the instigation of respondents 1 to 3, the respondents 4 to 9 trespassed into the appellant's land, damaged the fence and boundary stones. Since the respondents 1 to 3 are politically well connected and powerful, they abetted the respondents 4 to 9 to commit the offence and thereby caused damage to the property worth of Rs.12,000/-. The complaint which was given to the Police not acted upon, the appellant filed private complaint against the respondents before the Trial Court for offence under Sections 427 and 448 r/w 109 IPC .

3.During trial, on the side of the appellant/complainant, six witnesses examined as PW1 to PW6 and 22 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P22. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted all the respondents from all the charges.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that in this case, the Trial Court failed to take note that apart from the appellant, all independent eye witnesses (PW2 to PW4) clearly stated about the respondents 4 to 9 entering into the appellant's land, damaging fence and boundary stones. The 1^st respondent in connivance with Madhukarai Police lodged a false complaint against the appellant, a case in Crime No.335 of 2005 was registered and the appellant was arrested. Thereafter, one Askar Ali met the appellant in the Court and forced the appellant to give 50 cents of land favouring the 1^st respondent, if accepted, the case against the appellant can be withdrawn. Despite the appellant taken steps to stop the illegal felling of trees in the Government poramboke land, the 1^st respondent with the help of muscle men, successfully cut the trees, sold the same and enriched himself Rs.25,000/- every year. He further submitted that the appellant taking steps to curb illegal activities of the 1^st respondent is proved by Exs.P2 to P4, the hand bills, and complaint given to the District Collector. The Trial Court failed to consider the 1^st respondent forced the appellant to remove the banana trees in the land in survey No.490 to use it as common pathway to his land.

5.The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant made arrangements for free patta for the marginalized poor people in the village by sending representations to the various authorities (Ex.P14) which was opposed by the 1^st respondent, a people representative. In this case, the respondents 4 to 9 are Panchayat Workers who now claim that they came to lay pipeline on 15.11.2009 and not caused any damage to fence and boundary stones in the appellant's property. The Trial Court not considered all these aspects and mechanically dismissed the complaint. Hence, he prays for conviction setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents subm