Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 723 (AP)

K. Rajamohan Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-11-18

K.SURESH REDDY

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment of acquittal, dated 29.09.2007 passed in C.C. No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the material prosecution witnesses and all the accused are residents of Ponduru Village and Mandal of Srikakulam District. There was a dispute with regard to vacant site along with a house, in which, P.W.1 was running a hotel. Originally, one Ammadamma is the owner of the said house and she gave the said house to P.W.1, in which, he is running a hotel in the name and style of 'Hotel Ravi Krishna'. Subsequently, the said Ammadamma sold the house to the wife of Accused No.1 and executed a registered sale deed in her favour. While so, on 30.10.2002 at about 9.00 p.m., all the accused and the deceased Vallappa (deceased in Cr.No.66 of 2002) went to the said house and attacked P.W.1 and his family members and tried to evict them from the disputed house. On that, some altercation took place between both the parties and both of them received injuries. P.W.1 further alleged that the accused have also committed theft of some articles from their house. On that, P.W.1 went to the Ponduru police station and lodged Ex.P1 report before them. Basing on that, police registered a case in Cr.No.65 of 2002 for the offences under section 148, 448, 323, 324, 379 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code,1860 ("for short IPC") and investigated into. After completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Ex.P1 to P21. On defence side, Exs.D1 to D24 have been marked. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused as stated Supra. 5. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the revision petitioner (defacto complainant ) filed the present revision case before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent / State. 7. It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed house, where he was running a hotel. 6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent / State. 7. It is an admitted fact that P.W.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed house, where he was running a hotel. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not at all reliable as they are changing their versions from time to time. Apart from inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they did not explain with regard to the injuries sustained by the accused. In fact, the accused have also received injuries in the said incident and as such, the prosecution has not come out with true version and suppressed the injuries of the accused. Though the injuries received by the accused are simple in nature, it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to how they received injuries. Further, there was no corroboration from the medical evidence to the ocular version of the prosecution. Therefore, it creates suspicion on the version of the prosecution case. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the accused also raised the ground of self-defence in this case. In fact, one person on the side of accused died in the said incident. Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record, this Court came to the conclusion that view taken by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be said that it is a perverse and is not based on sound reasoning. Further, civil disputes are pending between them, which is the subject matter of O.S.59 of 2002. Therefore, as the civil disputes pending between them and considering the situation of rivalry between both the parties, findings given by the learned trial Judge is reasonable and justifiable and hence, there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order. 9. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the Judgment of acquittal, dated 29.09.2007 passed in C.C. No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam, is hereby confirmed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.