ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the appellants-

accused aggrieved by the Judgment in Crl.A.No.361 of 2009, dated 22.02.2010 on the file of learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, petitioners were responsible for demolishing the graveyard situated at Ganga Nagar, Yakutpura and making construction on the Waqf land. On the basis of the said complaint, (Ex.P1), the Police conducted investigation and found that the petitioners were responsible for causing destruction of the graveyard and making construction in the Waqf property.

3. The revision petitioners were tried for the offence under Section 297 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned trial Court, having examined PWs.1 to 7 and marking Exs.P1 to P7, found that the petitioners committed the said offence and accordingly, convicted them. The appellate Court found that the findings of the learned trial Court needs no interference and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by them.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners would submit that the offence under Section 297 of I.P.C is not made out, for the reason of their being no evidence regarding the persons whose religion was insulted. In the absence of any such evidence, the question of conviction for the offence under Section 297 of I.P.C does not arise.

6. Section 297 of I.P.C reads as under;

“any person wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulcher, or any place set apart from the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

7. Having gone through the record, PWs 4 to 6 have deposed that petitioners occupied Waqf property and constructed the house. Nothing is elicited in cross examination to discredit their evidence. I do not find any reason to set aside the findings of Courts below.

8. The incident is of the year 2004 and the petitioners were aged 54 years and 48 years respectively at the time of incident and nearly twenty years have been passed.

9. On instructions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no other similar cases, which are registered against the petitioners.

10. Keeping in view that the revision petitioners are now aged more than 75 years, the sentence of Imprisonment of one year is now reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioners.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.06.2024 Ds/Nds