04-08-2014 BETWEEN:
Bayi Venkata Appalarayudu Patrudu …..Appellant/Complainant AND Kodi Demudu and others …..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the de facto Complainant challenging the Judgment dated 06.09.2007 passed in C.C. No.125 of 2003 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused /A.1 to A.9 and A.16 to A.19 for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below is as follows:
The complainant is the absolute owner of the land in S.No.109/2 measuring Ac.2.70 cents situated in Vepada Village. The complainant filed suit against A.2, A.5 and A.17 in O.S. 24/2002 and obtained ex parte interim orders against A.2, A.5, A.17 and their men. While the suit is pending A.1 to A.19 trespassed into the land and tried the raise huts in the month of May, 2002. The complainant on information went to the land questioned A.1 to A.19 then all the accused beat the complainant with hands indiscriminately trespassed into the land and threatened him with dire consequences. Accused 1 to 19 have no right, title or possession over the suit property before May, 2002. In the year 1982 District Collector, Vizianagaram initiated land acquisition proceedings for Ac.1.50 cents in same survey number and gazette publication was also published then the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ No.540/1983 and the writ was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directing the District Collector, Vizianagaram to conduct fresh enquiry U/sec.5-A of land Acquisition proceedings and also granted status quo. In the year 2002 the complainant filed another writ petition 4456/2002 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and the Hon’ble High Court directed the District Collector for fresh enquiry and when the enquiries are pending A.2, A.5 and A.17 along with their men and agents proclaiming in the village that they would trespass into the land. Hence, the complainant filed suit against A.2, A.5 and A.17 and other members and also added Government as a party to the suit and the said suit is pending while the suit is pending A.1 to A.19 done mischievous acts and the complainant sustained loss and also A.1 to A.19 threatened the complainant to implicate him in false case taking advantage of the caste of the accused. The complainant filed a report before Vallampudi Police and police did not take any action and copy of the complaint is misplaced. Hence, the complainant filed this case before the court. The offence took place in S.No.109/2. The complaint filed before the court was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Vallampudi Police station on 27-7-
2002 for investigation and the Sub Inspector of Police without proper investigation closed the investigation on the ground that crime is civil in nature. Hence, this complainant before the Court.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.P.1. 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 for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 427 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on the ground that PW.1 has not specifically stated any of the overt acts against the accused and he has not stated the date on which the offence took place. Further P.W.1, in his evidence, has not spoken that A.1 to A.19 beat him, threatened him with dire consequences, but only stated that A.1 to A.9, A.12, A.13 and A.16 to A.19 pushed him. Further, in his cross- examination, he deposed that he sustained injuries, he went to hospital and he does not remember the name of the hospital where he took treatment, and that he has not filed any document to show that he took treatment. Further, he admits that he cannot able to identify the accused and he cannot say the names of all the accused by seeing their faces. Hence, the Court below acquitted the accused.
This Court perused the records and heard the arguments.
This Court is of the view that the Court below has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the complainant that while dismissing the complaint, the learned trial Judge has issued notice to the complainant, i.e. P.W.1 calling upon him to show cause has to why he should not pay the compensation under Section 250 (1) CrPC, as he has filed false complaint suppressing the material facts.
This Court is of the view that the said procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge is in accordance with law. If the complainant is aggrieved by any order passed by the trial Court on the basis of the said notice and the explanation offered by the complainant, it is left open to him to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 04.08.2014 pln