THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 of 2008
18-12-2014
BETWEEN:
Bararavuri Venkateswarlu …..Appellant/de facto complainant AND Karumanchi Subba Rao And another.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 25.09.2007 passed in C.C.No.290 of 2005 by the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 323 and 506 IPC.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
That the complainant supplied 1248 baddy bags worth about Rs.5,30,000/- to the accused. The accused paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- and subsequently when the remaining amount was demanded by the complainant, the accused stated that he had no necessity to pay the said amount and that the farmers came to Rice Mill an took away the amount due to them. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant lodged a complaint to the police and also the Legal Services Authority. On hearing the same, the accused came to the house of the complainant and assaulted him and caused injuries. Hence, the case is registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 323 and 506 IPC.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and no documents were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused and the relevant observations are as under.
(1) In the instant case, admittedly, according to the case of the prosecution that the complainant gave 1248 paddy bags to the accused worth Rs.5,30,000/- and the accused paid an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- towards part payment. In such a case, the question of attracting the ingredients under Section 415 IPC does not arise.
(2) In the instant case, according to the complainant, the accused made part payment of Rs.2,20,000/- and promised to pay the remaining balance after some time. In such a case, the complainant cannot make the accused liable for the offence under Section 420 IPC as the alleged transaction between the complainant and the accused is purely civil in nature.
(3) It is pertinent to comment that no documents have been placed before the Court to arrive at a just decision that the accused fabricated the vouchers, purported to have signed by the Ryots. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 is silent on that aspect. Viewed in any manner, there is no basis for the prosecution to allege that the accused fabricated the vouchers purported to have signed by the Ryots. Consequently, it is inevitable to hold that the charge under Section 465 IPC does not lie in the absence of any material, more particularly, the documentary proof, detecting the proof of forgery.
(4) So far the charge under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 is totally inconsistent with the averments of the complaint. P.W.1 states that the accused came to his village and asked him to sign on some vouchers and when he refused to sign, the accused beat him. Whereas, it is averred in the complaint that the accused and his men beat the complainant with hands and legs, after the complainant giving a police report and representing the matter to the Legal Services Authority. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused beat him, when he refused to sign on some vouchers has no basis and for that matter, the complaint does not reveal the accused asked the complainant to sign on some vouchers. Therefore, the fact that the accused beat P.W.1, complainant, does not deserve to be appreciated and has no basis.
(5) Adverting to charge under Section 506 IPC, in the entire evidence of P.W.1, it has not been spelled out that the accused intimated P.W.1 or threatened him. Therefore, to make the accused liable for the charge under Section 506 IPC, nothing can be culled out from the evidence of P.W.1 and as such, the charge under Section 506 IPC could not be established by the prosecution against the accused.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 18.12.2014 pln