THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.907 of 2008 12-08-2014 BETWEEN:
Komallapalli Gopaladasu Naidu …..Appellant/Complainant AND The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and others …..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.907 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the de facto Complainant challenging the Judgment dated 19.09.2007 passed in C.C. No.438 of 2001 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and convicted them for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC and that A.1 to A.3 are directed to be released on their executing bond of Rs.3,000/- with two sureties and to appear and receive sentence within a period of one year and in the mean time to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
That the Complainant is having Moola madi in an extent of Ac.0.80 cents which is a part of Muragodi Polam bearing patta No.216, S.No.230/1 situated at Kothuru village in Kothuru Mandalam and he has been cultivating the same with the help of farm servants and coolies and he used to raise paddy and other crops in it every year, while so the accused unauthorisedly and high handedly deposited stones, bricks and logs in heaps in the zeroyati fields of the complainant, in the northern portion of moolamadi in the absence of the complainant. The complainant, after noticing placing heaps of stones, bricks and logs in the said field asked accused to remove the heaps from the fields, but they did not remove the same accordingly the complainant went to his fields on 20-07-2000 at about 9 am as usual for agricultural operations and found that the said heaps were not removed by the accused and the complainant asked the accused to remove the heaps forthwith for which the accused grew wild instead of removing the heaps threatened the complainant and the complainant sustained wrongful loss of about Rs.500/- on account of the accused wrongfully placing stones, bricks and logs in heaps in his zeroyati land in an extent of about 10 cents and thereby he could not raise any crop in that land of 10 cents and the complainant got taken photos of the heaps of stones, bricks and logs placed in his land by a professional photographer. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the accused by placing heaps of stones, bricks logs in the zeroyati land of the complainant unauthorisedly and by refusing to remove them from the land of the complainant with intent to intimidate and annoy the complainant and by refusing to remove them caused wrongful loss to a tune of Rs.500/- and by threatening the complainant with dire consequences committed offences punishable under section 447, 427 and 506 (2) IPC and the complainant filed a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C before this Court and the same was forwarded to Station House Officer, Kothuru under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation and the police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.57/2000 but referred the matter as mistake to fact without proper investigation. Hence, the complaint.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 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 was of the opinion that though the prosecution proved the possession of the land and also the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC, failed to prove that the accused are the persons who dumped the heap of stones, bricks and logs in the land of the complainant. In this regard, the trial Court observed as follows:
At this juncture I feel that it is important to mention here that nobody witnessed the accused placing stones in the lands of complainant. In the absence of any eye witnesses it is not safe for this court to hold that the accused placed stone heaps in the land o f PW.1. More so the date of offence in this case is also doubtful as far as offence under Section 447, 427 IPC are concerned.
Insofar as the offence under Section 506(1) IPC against A.1 to A.3 is concerned, the Court below held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court below has observed that the evidence of P.W.1, which is supported by P.Ws.2 to 4 clearly deposed during their chief examination that when the complainant requested the accused to remove the stones and bricks, the accused abused the complainant with foul language and threatened him with dire consequences. Thus the evidence adduced by P.W.1 about his threatening by the accused is a clear, cogent, reliable and trust worthy. The accused failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal to disbelieve the case of prosecution, and hence, the Court below convicted A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC.
Head and perused the material available on record.
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 and 427 IPC and convicting the accused for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC is also 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 fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 12.08.2014 pln