HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1801 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Appellant-State filed the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment dated 16.07.2008 rendered in Crl.A.No.11 of 2007 wherein and whereby the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, setting aside the judgment dated 30.12.2006 rendered in S.T.C.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy, wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.300/- for the offence under Section 447 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant was allotted plot No.9 in Survey No.270/B admeasuring 136 square yards at Equaipally Village and a patta certificate was also issued to him but due to financial problems, he could not construct the house in the said plot. A-1/respondent herein encroached into the plot of the complainant and on the complaint of the complainant, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Amangal, visited the spot and instructed A-1 not to construct house in the said plot. Thereafter, A-1 along with other accused criminally trespassed into the said plot and started construction of house with roof of asbestos sheets and when the complainant intervened and 2 objected for construction of house, all the accused abused him in filthy language. Hence, the case.
This Court perused the entire impugned judgment and also heard the arguments.
As seen from the judgment of the appellate Court at para-16, it has been categorically stated as under:-
"When the title of P.W.1 over the said house plot and its boundaries are in dispute; and further when A-1 is having land abutting to the said plot and residing in a house constructed therein for the last 30 years as admitted by P.W.1 himself and as P.W.6, the MRO, stated that P.W.1 did not raise any construction from the date of allotment till his visit as per the patta rules and when it is the specific evidence of P.W.7 that as per his investigation P.W.1 was not in possession of the said plot, the allotment and possession of P.W.1 over the said plot is doubtful and from the evidence on record, it is clear that the subject matter in issue is of civil nature and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the Penal Code."
Therefore, it was specifically observed by the appellate Court that from the evidence on record, it is clear that the subject matter in issue is of civil nature and the accused cannot be prosecuted under the Penal Code. Further, there was no evidence on record that as on which date and at what time the alleged occurrence had taken place. The documentary evidence filed by A-1/respondent vide Exs.D1 to D13 amply proves the possession of A-1 over the land abutting to the disputed land. Accordingly, the learned appellate Court, considering the above aspects, held that A- 1/respondent was not found guilty for the offence under Section 447 IPC and acquitted him.
3
The prosecution could not show any ground to deviate from the findings given by the learned appellate Court and to give a different finding rather to disturb the finding arrived at by the appellate Court. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 16.07.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
_________________ (G. SRI DEVI, J) 25th March 2021 RRB