Kumarayya, J. - (1.)The petitioner is one of the 6 accused in C. C. No. 2 of 1960 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Narasaraopeta, who along with others was convicted of offences under Sections 143, 342 and 348, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default to Sutter simple imprisonment for a further term of one month for the offences under Section 348, I. P. C, and pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 or in default suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 143, I. P. C. No separate sentence was given for the offence under Section 342, I. P. C, in view of sentence already awarded for the offence under Section 143, I. P. C. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirmed the order of conviction and maintained the sentences of fine, but reduced the simple imprisonment awarded under Section 348 to one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. A-1 alone has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.)In order to appreciate the points raised in this revision, a brief statement of facts may be necessary. The petitioner is the former husband of the complainant, P. Anasuyamma (P.W. 1). The marriage between the two was dissolved under a decree dated 214-1959. Nevertheless, the petitioner under a registered deed dated 4-7-1959 settled certain property on her for her maintenance, even though she herself possessed some property given by her parents at the time of her marriage arid which was to an extent of 7 acres of land situate at Tangedumalli and two other villages. As she could not effectively manage her lands, being scattered in various villages, she entered into an agreement for exchange of these lands with one Raghavaiah (P.W. 4). The petitioner and A-5, who is the real brother of the complainant, were averse to this Idea and they wanted that the lands should be given to A-5. On 29-11-1959 at about 1 p.m., the complainant along with P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 went to inspect the lands. They first went to the lands at Gurijipalli and thereafter to Tangedumalli. From there they left at about 5-30 p.m. for Narsaraopet to seek legal advice. As the complainant and P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6 reached a hillock on the eastern side of Kotappakonda by 6-30 p.m., they saw the petitioner and his companions. The latter formed into an unlawful assembly, waylaid the complainant and her witnesses, assaulted and forcibly took the complainant in a car. The protests of the witnesses went unheeded. The complainant was taken to Purushottamapatnam and there she was wrongfully confined in a house. There on 30-12-1959, the mother of the complainant, P. W. 5, was also brought and kept under wrongful confinement. The petitioner and accused No. 5, the real brother of the complainant. In the presence of the other accused after beating the complianant compelled her to reconvict her properly in their name. Eventually, they forcibly obtained her signature on two white papers with tables affixed with a view to fabricate a forged document in relation to the said property. While the matters stood thus, P.W. 4 made a complaint firstly to the police on 29-12-1959 itself, but when the police did not take any action, on 31-12-1959 he filed a petition under Section 100 Cr. P. C. before the Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet, who was the only Magistrate entrusted with criminal work for that taluk. The learned Magistrate after being satisfied on the material produced before him that the complainant was under wrongful confinement in the house of one Balakoteswararao in Purushottamapatnam, issued a search warrant under Section 100 Crl. p. C. to the Section 1 of Police, Chilakalurpeta, in whose territorial jurisdiction the complainant was wrongfully confined. Accordingly, the S. I. of Police (P. W. 12), proceeded to Purushottamapatnam to the house of Balakoteswararao and having found the complainant and her mother mere, rescued them and produced them before the Magistrate on 2-1-1960. After the complainant was thus set at large, she lodged her complaint on 5-1-1960 against the six accused persons in relation to the offences committed against tier, which, as already stated, ended in conviction of the petitioner.
(3.)In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the legality of the proceedings on more than one ground. It is first urged that the courts below ought to have accepted the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner, for according to him, it gains support in some manner or other even from the statements of P. Ws. 8 and 11. Both the courts below have dealt with this aspect elaborately and found that the plea of alibi cannot be accepted. It is a finding of fact which was arrived at on appraisal of the evidence on record. When both the Courts have concurrently taken a definite view, unless that view is unreasonable or wholly unwarranted by the material on record, it is not open to interference. I do not think having regard to the discussion in the judgments of the courts below the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner can be accepted.