Dismissed

Karra Ravinder Reddy, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 9 Others

Telangana HC7 Feb 2023CRLRC/974/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed by a de-facto complainant regarding an acquittal of ten respondents for alleged criminal trespass and damages, the High Court dismissed the revision, holding that witness testimony was contradictory and insufficient to prove the gravity of offenses charged.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case dismissed; accused respondents remain acquitted.

Karra Ravinder Reddy, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^325e 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D,NAGARJUN

¶6

974

¶7

criminar Revision fired under sections 397 & 40l of cr.p.c. against the Judgment dated 04-04-2009 passed in cc.No. tsi or zooa on the fire of the Court of the Additional Judiciai Magistrate of First Class at Karimangar

¶8

Karra Ravinder Reddy, S/o.. Chandra Reddy, Business, R/o. H.No. 5-713, Sarasathinagar, Theegalaguftapally, Karimnajar

¶9

...PETITIONER/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT

¶10

AND

¶11

The.State thgrough SHO pS,. Karimangar (Rural) Karimnagar District, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A,.p., nVOLraOaU.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Gone.Anjaiah,, S/o. Rajamallu, Business, Rl/o. Laxm rpur , H/o. Malkapur Village of Ka rimangar Mandal, and District.

¶14

Gone Lingaiah,, S/o. Rajamallu, Business Ri./o. Laxmipur, H/o. Malkapur

¶15

Village of Karimangar Mandal, and District.

¶16

G.one Dargaiah, S/o.Rajamallu, Business, Fl/o. Laxmipur, H/o. Malkapur Village of Karimangar Mandal, and Distriit.

¶17

Gone Rayamallu,, S/o. Narsaiah, Business, R/o. Laxmipur, H/o. Malkapur Village of Karimangar Mandal, and District.

¶18

.U-llendula Pochaiah,, S/o. Narsaiah, Business, Rl/o. Laxmipur, H/o. Malkapur Village of Karimangar Mandal, and District.

¶19

Ullendula Lasmaiah,, S/o. Narsaiah, Business, Rl/o. Laxmipur, H/o. Malkapur Village of Karimangar Mandal, and District.

¶20

Ullendula Mallesham-,, S/o. Laxmaiah, Business, R/o. Laxmipur, H/o.

¶21

^^{Malkapur Village of Karimangar Mandal, and District.} 9. Ullendula Rajesham,, S/o. Lixmaiah, Business, Rl/o. Laxmipur, H/o. Malkapur Village of Karimangar Mandal, and District.

¶22

1 0. Kashipaka Dargaiah,, S/o_ Rajaiah, Business, R/o. Malkapur Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 9

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. K. VENUMADHAV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJT'N

¶28

4 0F'

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This revision is fited by the de-facto complainant by narne K' Ravinder Reddy aggrieved by the judgment dated 04-o4.2oo9 in c.c.No.153 of 2oog passed by the Addirional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Karimnagar, wherein respondent Nos.2 to 10/A1 to 49 were found not guilty of the offences charged against them.

¶31

¶32

The facts in brief €rre as under:

¶33

a- The de-facto comprainant has filed a complai'nt before the police stating that he owns tand to an extent of Ac.r.1o guntas.in Sy.No.3o of Laxmipur village and has erected two sheds in the said land. Respondent Nos.2 to 10, who belong to the sa.me vilrage, have been claiming rights over the said land. severar quarrels took prace and the de-facto complainant has also filed a civil suit against respondent Nos.2 to 10. On O5.1 L.2OOT, at about 2.OO &.ffi., respondent Nos.2 to 10 have trespassed into the land belonging to the de-facto "o-fiuliant and dismantled both

¶34

¶35

the sheds, damaged the u,ood, furniture, cement bags and other articles, thereby the de-facto complainant sustained loss of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Respondent Nos.2 to 10 also threatened LWs.2, 3 anC 5 to kill them.

¶36

On the strength of the complaint of the de-facto complainant, the SI of Police has registered a case in Crime No.261 of 2OO7 for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is frled. During the course of trial, the prosecution in all has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. On behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 10, no document was marked and no witness was examined. Considering both the oral and documentar5i evidence, the trial Court has found all the accused/respondent Nos.2 to 10 not guilty of any offence vide judgment dated 04.o4.2009.

¶37

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed on the following grounds:

¶38

¶39

i. The impugned judgment is erroneous in law and against the material available on record. The court below failed to follow the quarity of evidence adduced by the prosecution but not the qua,tity of evidence. The court below without looking into the evidence adduced by the d, simply agquitted the accused and therefore, prayed the Court to allow the revision.

¶40

5' Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as weil as the learned Additionar public prosecutor and perused the record.

¶41

Now, the point for determination is whether the trial court has committed any error or irregularity either in application of law or procedure which affected the case of the petitioner?

¶42

7 ' on going through the evidence of alr witnesses, the copies of depositions, which are enclosed to this revision, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is that on a fatefur day in the midnight at about 2.oo a.m., respondent Nos.2 to 10 have trespassed- into the rand of the de-facto

¶43

¶44

complainant and damaged the property and threatened LW.2 and others with dire consequences including killing them. PWs.2, 3 amd 5, who were produced before the Court and examined as eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution even during the cross-examination of the Assistant Public Prosecutor after declaring them as hostile. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 is not helpful to the prosecution. Similarly, PW.6 is a photographer, r't hc has sirnply taken the pictures and not an eye witness to the incident. PW.7 is a witness for conducting of panchanama. He was also not an eye witness to the incident. PW.8, SI of Police, has deposed about the course oi investigation.

¶45

According to the evidence of PW.l, in his chiefexamination he has deposed that on 05.10.2007 all the accused have trespassed into his land and caused damage to the property and also threatened LWs.2, 3 and 5 with dire consequences. Even if the entire chief-examination is taken into consideration, except the fact that the accused persons have trespassed into his land and dismantled the

)

t i

t 1

sheds, he did not deposed anything intimidating either him or other witnesses with dire consequences, which attracts offence under section so6 lpc. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he has not personally seen when the accused were dismantting the compound wa]l.

¶50

9 - It is to be noted that the alleged offence took place in the midnight and pw. r. himself has stated that he has not seen the incident and was not present. Therefore, once Pw.1 is not present and not seen the incident, then there is no material before the court to conclude that respondent Nos.2 to ro I A1 to Ag have trespassed into the land belonging to the de-facto complainant and caused damage to the property

¶51

The scope of this revision is very limited. on perusal of the evidence as discussed above, it is to be seen that when the witnesses did not speak anything, the question of appreciating as to whether the triar court has properly applied the penal provisions in respect of the criminal trespass into the land of the de-facto complainant and causing damage to the property worth Rs.1,5O,OOO/_ and

¶52

¶53

intimidating the de-facto complainant and others criminally which attracts the provision under Section 5O6 do not arise. Therefore, the trial Court has properly appreciated the facts and came to the^jurst conclusion and therefore, there is nothing to intervene in the said order and the revision is liable to be dismissed

¶54

In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶55

Miscellaneous petitions. if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/. M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class at Karimangar}

¶61

The Station^{HouseOfficer, Karimnagar Rural, KarimnagarDistrict}

¶62

Two CCs to the^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶63

One CC to Sri^{K. Venumadhav, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶64

Two CD CoPies plp VH

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710212023

p' a;
'/
J I
,|l t$s
i-tf. x\ tQ\'
o
,), tf ,}.. iii{'

¶69

ORDER

¶70

CRLRC.No.974 of 2009

¶71

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC.

¶72

@)"01"

¶73

r1 z 18

Karra Ravinder Reddy, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karra Ravinder Reddy, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 9 Others

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

Akram Mohiuddin, Vs S. Ashok Kumar, and Another

Adiredy Srinivasa Reddy, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Smt. D.a.Deepa Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Y.Raghuram , Vs C.Rajendra Kumar and Another

Naresh Kumar Vs R. Suresh Babu, Neredmet, R.R. District, and Anr.

Mohammed Ahmeduddin Siddique, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and 2 Others