Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 300 (AP)

A. Bhaskara Naidu v. A. Jyothi Naidu

2010-04-13

B.N.RAO NALLA

body2010
Judgment : This Criminal Revision Case arises out of the judgment dated 31-08-2004 in C.C.No.131 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. 2. The defacto complainant and the accused are brothers. They have cultivable lands. That the accused is alleged to have forged the signatures of the defacto complainant on Ex.P-3 sale deed dated 17-07-2000 (the date is wrongly mentioned in the trial Court’s Judgment as 18-07-2000) and on Ex.P-4 amendment document dated 13-09-2000 (the date is wrongly mentioned in the trial Court’s Judgment as 18-09-2000). Thus, he got the land of defacto complainant (PW-1) and registered in the name of accused/R-1. That the defacto complainant came to know about the same on 31-12-2000 while he along with his father and brother-in-law was watering the field (sugar cane crop), as the accused and the defacto complainant appeared there and objected watering the field stating that he is the bone fide purchaser of the filed for valuable consideration. That thereafter the defacto complainant went to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Chittoor and verified the record and after obtaining the certified copies of Exs.P-3 and P-4, he preferred a complaint on 03-01-2001 with the Police of Palasamudram Police Station. That as the Police failed to investigate the case, he filed a private complaint before the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class which was forwarded to the Police for investigation and report. That after completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused (R-1) for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467 and 474 IPC. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22 on its behalf. Whereas, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence except Ex.D-1 part of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3. 4. The defence of the accused was one of denial. 5. Taking into consideration the material on record, appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also considering the documents that are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no trustworthy evidence on record to base the conviction of the accused for the alleged offences as already been stated herein above. 6. 5. Taking into consideration the material on record, appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also considering the documents that are marked as Exs.P-1 to P-13, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no trustworthy evidence on record to base the conviction of the accused for the alleged offences as already been stated herein above. 6. The defacto complainant who was examined as PW-1 has reiterated the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint preferred by him including his denial of execution of originals of Ex.P-3 sale deed and Ex.P-4 amendment document. The opinion of PW-9, the finger print expert and PW-13 handwriting expert is to the effect that the signature and thumb impression of the defacto complainant (PW-1) and the accused were not identical. Further, the opinion of PW-13, handwriting expert is to the effect that the authorship of the questioned signatures Q-1 to Q-22 (Exs.P-3 and P-4) were simulated writings (when compared with the standard writings i.e., Ex.P-20/S1 to S6 and Ex.P-21 specimen signatures of the defacto complainant), they did not tally and there was no similarity. That being so, the trial Court did not accept the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 considering that the confession alleged to have been made by the accused before them amounts to extra judicial confession. That being so, the trial Court came to the conclusion and gave a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as required in law. That being so, the trial Court had acquitted the accused finding him not guilty for the alleged offences under Sections. 465, 467 and 474 IPC. That questioning the same, the defacto complainant preferred Revision Case stating that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective, inter alia, that all prosecution witnesses in general and the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 13 in particular. 7. It is canvassed on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 13 supports the case of the prosecution in all material particulars constituting the offences as alleged against the first respondent/accused as per the charge sheet. Therefore, it is contended that the trial Court ought not to have brushed aside their evidence, so also the opinion of PW-9, the finger print expert in Ex.P-15 and PW-13, handwriting expert in Ex.P-22. Therefore, it is contended that the trial Court ought not to have brushed aside their evidence, so also the opinion of PW-9, the finger print expert in Ex.P-15 and PW-13, handwriting expert in Ex.P-22. Therefore, it is contended that the observation of the trial court was sent in tune with the facts of the case as the evidence on record made different the case of the prosecution. 8. Two decisions are relied on on behalf of the revision petitioner/defacto complainant. One is K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788) and another is Sheetala Prasad and others v. Sri Kant and another (2010 (1) ALT (Crl) 191 (SC)). Both these decisions referred to Section 397 and sub Section 3 of Section 401 of Cr.P.C. The ratio decidendi in both the cases is similar and it is to the effect that a case of acquittal cannot be converted into one of the conviction unless the material evidence on record is overlooked. 9. In any case, as seen from any angle, there is no direct evidence in the case on hand to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged and charged with. More over, the trial Court has given a clear finding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case and thereby acquitted the accused finding him not guilty for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 467 and 474 of IPC. Above all, a case of acquittal stands on a different footing from dealing with a case of conviction since it effects the life and liberty of the accused. Therefore, the appellate court is required to be cautious in dealing with the case of acquittal. 10. In the above circumstances, the revisional Court is not inclined to be convinced by the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioner/defacto complainant since the powers of this court are circumscribed by statute. As such, this revisional Court is of the view that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial court does not suffer from infirmity or irregularity warranting interference from this revisional court in any way. 11. In the result, the revision case fails and the same stands dismissed.