Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... vs Erlapally Jangaiah on 25 March, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
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
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.
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
