The victim's right to appeal is restricted by statute, and a revision for sentence enhancement is permissible without prior appeal against acquittal; principles of proportionality in sentencing were upheld.

1. A. The Revision : This Criminal Revision Case was originally filed by Mr. K. C. Subramani, P.W.1 / de facto complainant in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2015, aggrieved by the Judgment of the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2015, dated 04.12.2006, imposing the sentence of only a fine of Rs.200/- each, for the offence under S.447 3of I.P.C., in default to undergo, one week imprisonment; a fine of Rs.100/- each, for the offence under S.341 of I.P.C., in default to undergo, one week imprisonment; a fine of Rs.100/- each, for the offence under S.294(b) of I.P.C., in default to undergo, one week imprisonment; a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under S.506(ii) of I.P.C., in default to undergo, three months imprisonment, and to impose an appropriate sentence on the accused, who are guilty of the offences.

2. B. Remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India : The accused had paid their respective fine amounts and had not preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence. Originally, by an order dated 24.10.2018, the Criminal revision was taken up by this Court and the respondents 2 and 3 / accused were not present. After considering the case on merits the sentence was enhanced, imposing imprisonment sentences for the offences proved. As against the order of this Court the petitioner / accused preferred an appeal in S.L.P.Crl.No.10306 of 2019. By order dated 29th November 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the action of this Court in enhancing the sentence without the accused being represented by Legal Aid Counsel is erroneous even if they had not engaged a counsel, and remanded the matter back to this Court.

3. In the meanwhile, the original revision petitioner / K.C.Subramani died and upon being furnished the particulars of the legal heir, namely, his son Mr.S.Vinayagam, this Court impleaded him as the second petitioner in the case. It is pertinent to state here that originally the matter was before the Learned District and Session Judge, Vellore in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2015 as the respondents 2 and 3 / accused were also charged for an offence under S.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Trial Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution in respect of the said offence and acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 / accused of the said offences, however, no appeal is preferred either by State or by P.W.1 / de - facto complainant, or his legal heirs as against the acquittal of the respondents 2 and 3 / accused in respect of the said charges.

4. C. The Complaint and the trial : On 06.11.2003, P.W.1 / K.C.Subramani, went to Thiruvalam Police Station, Vellore District and handed over a copy of the complaint dated 05.10.2003 along with the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3667 of 2003 dated 23.10.2003, directing the respondent / Police, to consider the complaint and register a case if offences are made out. In the complaint, P.W.1 stated that he belonged to the scheduled caste, he was the owner of the land in S.No.75/2. The owner of the adjacent land in S.No.75/2B viz., Kandhasamy gounder had encroached a portion of his land, therefore, he had approached the Civil Court by way of O.S.No.616 of 1986 for declaration and possession and the same was decreed in his favour on 04.08.1999. Similarly, he had filed against one more person by name Yelyonan, in respect of S.No.75/1 and he has surrendered the possession.

5. Pursuant to the decree against Kandhasamy gounder, an execution petition was filed in which, possession was taken. On 05.10.2003 at 8.00 a.m., when he and his wife and