Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi

Telangana HC18 Aug 2011CRLA/1116/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment confirms an order of acquittal against three accused persons regarding offences of trespass and criminal intimidation. The High Court held that the trial court correctly relied on the lack of corroboration and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, refusing to upset the finding of acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against acquittal filed by the State is dismissed, and the judgment acquitting the respondents is confirmed.

The State of a.P., Vs Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2006.

¶6

Between:

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Appellant-Complainant V/s. Mallela Vijayalakshmi & 2-Ors. … RespondentsAccused Counsel for the Appellant : Addl Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri C. Praveen Kumar

¶8

The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page).

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2006

¶11

JUDGMENT :

¶12

This is an appeal from the judgment dated 08-04-2005 passed in CC.No. 230 of 2002 by the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under section 452, 323, 506 r/w section 34 of IPC.

¶13

2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the

¶14

State and Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.

¶15

3. The brief facts leading to the order of acquittal passed by the

¶16

learned Magistrate may be stated as follows:

¶17

PW-1 Vanama Niranjan Rao lodged a report with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam II-Town Police Station alleging that on 24-5-2000 while some construction work of his house was going on the respondents trespassed into the house, necked him out of the house and also threatened him. Basing on the report, a case in Cr.No.107/2000 was registered for the offences under section 452, 323, 506 read with section 34

¶18

of IPC. The offence was investigated by PW-3 Inspector of Police and

¶19

charge sheet was filed against the respondents-accused.

¶20

4. In the course of trial before the learned Magistrate, the

¶21

prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondents examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P9. The respondents did not propose to examine any defence witness but Exs.D-1 and D-2 contradictions were marked on their behalf.

¶22

5. The learned trial court upon considering the entire evidence on record acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶23

6. PW-1 however stated in his evidence about the accused entering into the house belonging to him under construction and necked him out and they are staying in the said house. The defence version is that in respect of the land of an extent of Ac:1-10 guntas in Survey No. 98 of Khammam Rural, the first respondent filed OS.No.99 of 1983 for permanent injunction, which was dismissed. He also filed OS.No. 65 of 1985 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was dismissed for default and that PW-1 taking advantage of the dismissal of suits tried to occupy the house belonging to the respondents-accused which was under construction

¶24

lodged a false report against the respondents-accused.

¶25

7. As rightly held by the trial court that merely because the suit filed

¶26

by the first accused was dismissed, it cannot be said that the appellant proved his title and possession in respect of the land in survey no.98. The learned trial court also held that PW-2 as per Ex.D-1 contradiction stated that he was mason of the construction of the house whereas in his evidence he stated that he is a watchman appointed by PW-1. The learned trial Court also did not believe the evidence of PW-2 on the ground that his version is at variance to that of PW-1 and his witnessing the incident at relevant point of time was considered by the trial court as untrue. Further as rightly held by the learned trial court as per the evidence of PW-1 there are number of people engaged for the construction of the house but none of them nor any neighbour was examined to prove the incident. Added to this, the incident took place on 24-5-2000 and PW-1 lodged Ex.P-1 report on 15-

¶27

6-2000 i.e., three weeks after the incident. In view of the civil litigation between the parties and enmity between them, there is every possibility for the prosecution to suppress the genesis of the incident and to present distorted version.

¶28

8. Considering all these facts, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents for the offences under section 452, 323, 506 r/w section 34 of IPC. This Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal will not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court unless they are perverse or not based on evidence. Even if a different view is possible, this

¶29

Court is not supposed to upset the findings of acquittal and convict the

¶30

respondents-accused.

¶31

9. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment in CC.No.230 of 2002

¶32

passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents-accused is confirmed.

¶33

The appeal against acquittal filed by the State is dismissed.

¶34

_________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶35

JUSTICE R. KANTHA

¶36

18-08-2011 I s L

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶38

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1116 OF 2006

¶39

CIRCULATION No. 22 Date:18-08-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

The State of a.P., v. Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., v. Mallela Vijaya Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telugu Murali Vs Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

Kondapalli Meenakesava Reddy, Vs Chalasani Rajeswari

Telugu Murali Vs Cmi Service Society, Bellampally, Adilabad District

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Bolisetti Nageswara Rao

Y.Eswrappa Vs v.Ramana and 5 Others

Surampally Prabhakar Vs State of a.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor