THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.409 of 2008
18-12-2014
BETWEEN:
Pandi Rambabu …..Appellant/de facto complainant AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.409 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 23.10.2006 passed in C.C.No.46 of 1997 by the Court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.2 to A.4 and A.6 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 423, 120 IPC read with Section 109 IPC. The case against A.1 and A.5 was abated as they died during pendency of the case before the lower Court.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
One Paddi Peddayya @ Peddayya of Revidi village had four sons. The complainant is the son of one Narasimhulu who is one of the said four sons of Peddayya. About four decades back all the family properties of the said Peddayya were partitioned and at that time the family arrangements were arrived. According to which, the father of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) to his immediate elder brother Seethayya as a result of which the said Seetha relinquished his right in the share of the said properties and later he left to Visakhapatnam with the said amount to eke out his livelihood. Since then, his share of the land is being enjoyed by the family of the father of the complainant. His elder brother Seethayya never visited the said village thereafter and later he died. He was a bachelor. A.1 is the wife of the one Regana Pydayya. A.2 and A.3 are the sons of A.1. A.1 to A.3 are fully known that Pandi Seethayya never resided in Revadi village and died being unmarried. A.1 to A.3 used to visit the village of Revadi so as to have certain criminal conspiracy with one Pandi Jatlayya who is the Sr.Paternal uncle of the complainant and who died recently, who ultimately got a sale deed executed by the accused (A.1 to A.3) by giving a colour as if it was true and genuine Dt.4/5/1995 to an extent of Ac.0.22 cents situated in Revadi village belonging to the family of the complainant, where A.1 behaved herself to be the widow of the said Pandi Seethayya, S/o late Peddayya. Legal notices were issued to A.1 to A.3, but they did not choose to give any reply or acknowledge the same.
Complainant started investigation as regards the full particulars of the accused. His undivided brother viz., Pandi Ramana got issued a legal notice on 25.4.1995. A.2 has been working I Telegraph Department. Further, it is submitted that A.1 to A.6 in furtherance of common intention to commit the offence of criminal conspiracy in collusion abetted A.1 to A.3 with a dishonest and fraudulent intention of executing a deed of transfer by falsely describing themselves to be a widow and the sons of decreased Pandi Seethayya.
Further, they cheated not only the complainant and the family by causing wrongful loss to them, but also cheated the public executed a registered sale deed in favour of A.4 by presenting a deed of sale for registration before the competent authority in respect of any strip of land belonging to the family of the complainant. A.4 committed criminal trespass and further A.1 to A.3 are liable for punishment under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act and the other accused are also liable under the above sections of law besides A.1 to A.3 are liable for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 120-B and 447 IPC. All the accused are liable for the punishment under the above sections of law read with Section 109 of the IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 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 observing as under.
P.W.1 being the complainant has deposed the contents of his complaint. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.1 though stated that his grand father’s property was partitioned among his four sons but he failed to say the details of the lands owned by his grand father and similarly he failed to give the boundaries of each share of the properties divided among his father and his brothers. Though he deposed that he had been looking after the affairs of their family after the death of their father, peculiarly failed to give the particulars with regard to the property. He being complainant deposed in his cross-examination that one Pindi Jatlayya was also accused. Apparently, the said P.Jatlayya is not an accused. On perusal of the entire evidence, it is crystal clear that he could not explain in which way A.1 to A.3 conveyed the property to A.4 and how they deceived him. P.W.1 in his chief examination deposed that A.4 trespassed into the disputed land, but he did not speak on what date and in which way and in what manner, he trespassed into the disputed land. Though P.W.1 stated that A.1 to A.3 executed a sale deed with dishonest intention to trouble by falsely describing A.2 and A.3 as sons of Pandi Seethayya, they played fraud with the registering authority and thus rest of the accused abetted A.1 to A.3 in commission of the offence. But, no piece of evidence was placed on that lines. Admittedly, two civil suits are pending in between the parties. Though, several documents i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked in view of the lacking of the ingredients of Sections 415, 416 IPC, I am of the considered view that the said documents are no way helpful to the case of the complainant. P.W.3 was examined but he did not speak about the offences as alleged against the accused. He stated that one Seethayya was unmarried. Though it is a fact in issue, but in view of the failure on the part of the complainant in proving the ingredients of Sections 415, 416 IPC, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the complainant and similarly the evidence of P.W.4.
Admittedly, the complainant failed to prove the dishonestness of A.1 to A.3 in conveying the property to A.4. Though P.W.2 deposed that her husband purchased the property from one Seethayya for a consideration of Rs.300/- admittedly no scrap of paper was obtained by her husband from late Seethayya. Though P.W.1 stated that he had tax receipts for the land of Seethayya, he failed to produce the same into Court. Further, he failed to give the S.Number and patta number and boundaries of the property covered by the sale deeds said to have been executed by the accused. No neighbouring owner was examined to prove his possession and enjoyment of the disputed properties.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
The learned trial Judge rightly observed that the complainant fails to establish the fact that there was partition of properties among the brothers and that the deceased has relinquished his rights over the property. Further, there is not even an iota of evidence to show that he is in possession of the land which belongs to the deceased. Even though it is stated by P.W.1 in his cross-examination that one Pindi Jatlayya was also an accused, apparently he is not an accused in the present case. Further, the civil suits are pending between the parties. The learned trial Judge rightly observed that though P.W.1 stated that he had tax receipts for the land of the deceased, he failed to produce the same into the Court and also failed to give the survey number, patta number and also the boundaries of the property covered by sale deeds alleged to have been executed by the accused.
In view of the above discussion, 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