Peddireddy Suseelamma vs Peddireddy Shekhar Reddy 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3935 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1039 of 2008

ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.),

against the judgment dated 22.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.344

of 2004, by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Devarakonda.

2 The facts of the case are as under:

On 02.06.2003 at about 5.00 PM, when P.W.1 and P.W.2

were in their sweet lime garden they noticed that water was not

coming from the pipe and then they went to Donka and found

the accused breaking the pipes with a crowbar and spade.

When she questioned the accused, they threatened P.W.1 with

dire consequences. Basing on the compliant lodged by P.W.1 a

case ion Cr.No.31 of 2003 was registered against the accused

under Sections 447 and 427 IPC.

The case was taken on file against the accused under

Sections 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of trial,

the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1

to P.3 on its behalf.

The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Devarakonda,

after analyzing the entire evidence available on record came to

the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly

acquitted the accused of the alleged offences. Aggrieved

thereby, the de-facto complainant filed the present Criminal

Revision Case.

3 Heard Sri S.S.Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the accused

and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the

State and perused the material available on record.

4 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that

the trial Court failed to see that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is

consistent and there is nothing to disbelieve their version. He

further submitted that there is no inordinate delay in lodging

the FIR and that the delay occurred was only due to far away

police station from the scene of offence and that P.W.1 is nearly

70 years aged woman and prayed to convict the accused for the

alleged offences.

5. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the

trial Court had acquitted the accused basing on the material

available on record and there are no grounds to interfere with

the said judgment and prayed to dismiss the revision case.

6. On a perusal of the material available on record, the

offence took place on 02.06.2003 at about 5.00 PM whereas the

complaint was lodged on 03.06.2003 at 4.00 PM. The said delay

was not properly explained by the prosecution. As per the

evidence of P.W.6, the investigating officer, there are land

disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.2 did not depose

that he saw the accused while cutting the pipelines. P.W.3 is

also not an eye-witness to the incident, but he is only a hearsay

witness. P.W.5 panch witness did not support the case of the

prosecution. P.W.1 admitted in her cross-examination that a

case was pending against her son which was lodged by the

accused. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not trustworthy.

7 Therefore, taking the totality of circumstances into

consideration, the trial Court had given benefit of doubt to the

accused and had acquitted the accused for the alleged offences.

On appreciation of the entire material available on record, this

Court is of the considered view that there are no merits in the

present Criminal Revision Case to interfere with the judgment of

the trial Court.

8 The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision

Case shall also stand dismissed.

_______________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

Date: 28.07.2022 Kvsn