Nelapatla Chandrasekhar Reddy ... vs State Of A.P., Rep.By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 178 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     CRL.R.C.No.1112 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of

the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, in Crl.A.No.101

of 2007 dated 11.07.2008.

Brief facts of the case are that on 06.01.2004 all the revision

petitioners/accused trespassed into the house of the de facto

complainant and committed theft of 50 paddy bags and that the

matter was placed before elders for settlement and since the

mediation did not fructify, the de facto complainant presented a

report under Ex.P1 before police and basing on which, the police,

Ashwapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2004

against the revision petitioners. During the course of investigation,

the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence and found that

the stolen property was sold to one Posham Satyanarayana and that

he seized an amount of Rs.10,266/- being the sale proceeds of the

paddy from the said Satyanarayana under Ex.P4. After completion

of investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against the revision

petitioners, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.480 of 2006. The

revision petitioners/accused were tried for the offences punishable

under Sections 454 and 380 of I.P.C.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the

accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. On a

perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial

Court, convicted the revision petitioners/A-1 to A-8 for the offences

punishable under Sections 451 and 380 of I.P.C. and sentenced them

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence

punishable under Section 380 of I.P.C. No separate sentence was

passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 451 of

I.P.C. in view of the well settled principles of law.

In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioners/A-1 to A-8,

the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, dismissed the

appeal while modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of

six months imposed against A-2 to A-8 to rigorous imprisonment for

a period of one month, while maintaining the sentence of fine

imposed against them. However, the conviction and sentence

imposed against A-1 was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the

revision petitioners/A-1 to A-8 filed this criminal revision case.

Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the revision

petitioners/A-1 to A-8 went to the house of the de facto complainant

and highhandedly took away the paddy bags from his house despite

objection from P.W.1, who is the mother of the de facto complainant

and since the said paddy was sold to one P.Satyanarayana,

P.W.3/Investigating Officer recovered the value of the said paddy

from the said P.Satyanarayana in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. The

defence taken by the revision petitioners/accused is that the de facto

complainant himself sold away the paddy to the said

P.Satyanarayana and that they came to the house of the de facto

complainant to take away paddy in the tractor at the instance of the

said P.Satyanarayana only. The prosecution did not choose to

examine the said P.Satyanarayana, to whom the revision

petitioners/accused alleged to have sold the paddy for the reasons

best known to them. Further, P.Ws.4 and 5, in whose presence the

value of the paddy was recovered from the said P.Satyanarayana,

have not supported the case of the prosecution. That apart, P.W.1

admitted in her cross-examination that at the instance of Posham

Satyanarayana, accused came to their house and took away the

paddy in the absence of her son though she objected. Further, P.W.1

admitted that her son (de facto complainant) borrowed a sum of

Rs.10,000/- from the father of A-1 and he repaid only Rs.5,000/- and

that the father of A-1 demanded for repayment of the balance

amount of debt, but they could not repay the same. From the

above, it is clear that in order to avoid payment of the borrowed

amount to the father of A-1, the de facto complainant lodged a false

complaint against A-1 to A-8 with a delay of 35 days.

For the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that

the prosecution failed to prove that the accused trespassed into the

house of the de facto complainant and committed theft of paddy and

thereafter sold away the paddy to the said P.Satyanarayana.

Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners/

A-1 to A-8, in my considered view, suffered from illegality and

caused miscarriage of justice. Hence, the conviction and sentence

imposed against the revision petitioners/A-1 to A-8 for the offence

punishable under Section 380 of I.P.C. is liable to be set aside.

The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed. The

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed

and modified by the appellate Court for the offence punishable

under Section 380 of I.P.C. are hereby set aside and the revision

petitioners/A-1 to A-8 are acquitted of the said charge. Fine

amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioners/A-1 to A-8 shall be

refunded to them.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

24-01-2022 Gsn