IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, (EXCISE) :: KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: SMT. A.KANCHANA REDDY
SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
(EXCISE) KARIMNAGAR.
FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF MARCH, 2019.
CC.No. 642 OF 2018
Between: The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, LMD Colony (Cr.No. 159/2013). … Complainant.
And
1. Bongani Raju, s/o Pedda Muthilingam, 36yrs,
2. Bongoni Pedda Muthilingam, s/o Rajamallu, 80yrs, Both R/o Renikunta v/o Thimmapur Mdl
...Accused.
This case is coming before me on 01-03-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. A.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri J.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, LMD Colony P.S., has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 447,427,323,506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on receipt of court refer complaint on 5-7-2013, concerned police registered a case and proceeded with investigation and found that Lw.1 is resident of
Renikunta village and was eaking out livelihood by means of agriculture, A1 is son of A2, Lw.1, A2 and father of Lw.7 are own brothers, they purchased land in Sy.No. 14/B, an extent of Ac.0-27 gts jointly on 31-10-1964 from one Vasala Narayana through simple sale deed, hence for 48 years their names are entered in the revenue records as possessors and out of 27gts, about 12 gts of land was acquired by Roads & Buildings authorities for widening of Rajeev
Rahadari and at present Lw.1, Lw.7 and A2 are in possession of above 2 said land each to an extent of 5gts. A1 and father of Lw.7 constructed houses in the above lands about 15 to 20 years back in their share and
Lw.1 did not made any constructions in his share of land, which is adjacent to Rajeev Rahadari. Recently, the land cost is increased, A1 thought to grab the valuable land of Lw.1 and approached one Vasala
Janardhan, who is son of Vasala Nrayana, colluded with him and approached Sub Registrar office, Husnabad, got registered the land on the name of A2 on 24-4-2012 vide Doc.No. 1582/2013, the seller and buyer mentioned in the registration document, the land is open land and they intentionally cheated Sub Registrar, Husnabad, though there are constructed houses in the said land, which were constructed about 15 to 20 years back. On knowing the same, Lw.1 approached the Civil court in October, 2012 and filed a suit vide OS No. 573/2012 and the civil court passed Status-quo order directing both parties should keep and follow status-quo, but A2 knowingly violated status-quo order and sold 2gts of land to one Jagadeeshwar vide Regd. Doc.No.3911/2012,
A1 has signed on the registered document as witness and on 1-7-2013 at about 11.00 a.m., Lw.1 along with Lws. 2 and 3 were waiting at their land and were chit chatting with them, meantime, A1 and A2 came to there along with Lws. 4 and 5, who are labour, A1 & A2criminally trespassed into the land of Lw.1, started digging with the help of Lws. 2 and 3 and erecting stones, Lw.1 resisted in erecting stones and requested them not to trespass into his land and A1 told to Lw.1 how can he dare why restraining them, enraged with anger on Lw.1, caught hold his collar, abused him in filthy language, beat him with stones and threatened him with dire consequences and the same was witnessed by Lws. 2 to 5. Thus, accused are liable to be punished U/s. 323, 447, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.
3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 447,323,420,504 and 506 of IPC against the accused by the learned 3
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar and registered
the case as C.C.No. 1634/2013.
4.At this stage, the case was transferred by the Hon'ble Sessions court, Karimnagar to this court. After receiving the case file, this court numbered the case as C.C.No.642/2018.
5. After securing the presence of the accused before court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of
Cr.P.C.
6.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, heard, the charge under Sections 447,323,420,504 and 506 of IPC have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.Prosecution examined Pws.1 to Pw.10 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P8 and Ex.D1 to D3 are marked on behalf of defence.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.
10.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 447,323,420,504 and 506 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?
11.To establish the offence under sections 447,323,420,504 and 506 of IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused criminally trespassed into the land of Lw.1, caught hold his collar, abused him in filthy language and beat with hands and also threatened with dire consequences to kill him and colluded with
V.Janardhan, got registered the land of Lw.1 on the name of A2, on 4 24-4-2012 and A2 knowingly well, the existence of status-quo order sole away 2gts of land to one Jagadeeshwar, and A1 stood as a witness and for said transaction.
POINT
12.Lw.1/Pw.1/B.Veeraiah deposed that he is resident of Renikunta village and living by doing agriculture, he know Lw.2/Parsharamulu and
Lw.3-Parsharamulu, they are sons of his brothers and also know Lw.4-
Balaiah and Lw.5-Chandraiah. A2 is his elder brother and A1 is son of
A2 and one Jampaiah is his elder brother. In the year 1964, himself, A2, another brother Jampaiah have purchased the land to an extent of 27gts in Sy.no. 14/B situated at the outskirts of Renikunta village from one Narayana through simple sale deed by three of them, three brothers have equal shares in the said land, since then, they are in possession of the land and cultivating the same and in the year 1984 and 1985, the Government laid Rajiv Rahadari road from their land, as a result, they lost 11gts of land, afterwards, they all took equal shares of remaining land and A2 and another brother Jampaiah constructed residential houses in their respective lands, whereas, he erected stone poles around his land and in the year 2012 without his knowledge and consent, A2 got registered the land to an extent of 16gts through
Vasala Janardhan, who is son of their vendor Vasala Narayana and after knowing the same, himself and his brother Jampaiah went and questioned both the accused persons, but they bluntly neglected them, as the accused have already got registered the land. In this regard, he has filed a suit in JCJ court, Karimnagar and obtained Status-quo order, even while status-quo order was in force, A2 sold 2gts of land to one
L.Jagadeeshwar and also fixed the boundaries to 2 gts of land and the accused persons also disturbed the boundary stones of their land and removed the stone poles from their land and threatened them with dire consequences and A1 also tried to assault him with a stone, as such he 5 filed a private complaint vide Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is CC of sale deed No.
1582/2012, dated 25-4-2012 and Ex.P3 is CC of Status-quo order issued in his favour.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.1 stated that he is having other lands apart from this case lands and he used to do agriculture himself and also on lease basis and his farm servants name is Boini Balaiah/Lw.4, he is working till today with him and that as per
Ex.P3 status-quo was in force upto 12-12-2012 only. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that A2 purchased the disputed land of this case from
Vasala Janardhan. Pw.1 volunteered that without their knowledge, A2 obtained false document. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that A2 never jointly purchased land with them and there is no necessity to him to purchase jointly and that A2 also obtained pattedar pass book according to law from his original vendor. Pw.1 further stated that he has not taken any criminal step against Vasala Janardhan on the allegation that he cheated them by executing sale deed and he has not filed any single piece of document in this case to show that the disputed land is in his name and he did not remember the date when he filed complaint before the police with regard to cause of action of this case and he has not asked the police any receipt as acknowledgement to his complaint and he also made complaint, the then Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar and one month police did counseling about this matter, but in vain. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that he never approached police and never applied before S.P., directly, he filed private complaint before this court and that he never mentioned in Ex.P1 about erecting fencing poles around the disputed land. Pw.1 further stated that he filed complaint into court showing the land within the boundaries mentioned by him and claiming that the land belongs to him and he mentioned in Ex.P1 that he erected fencing around the disputed land. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that he is no way 6 concerned with the land shown in the boundaries and he never filed any document in that regard and he brought Lws. 4 and 5 to the scene of offence, when A1 was dismantling the fencing poles and on his enquiry, he came to know that A2 purchased the land from Vasala
Janardhan and he do not know when A2 got registered the disputed land and on the date of alleged dispute, himself and Lws. 2 to 5 were erecting poles at the scene of offence and he do not know whether status-quo orders permitted him to erect poles or not and he mentioned in Ex.P1 that accused beat him with a stone. Pw.1 denied the suggestion that he did not mention in Ex.P1 that accused beat him with a stone and that the disputed land does not belongs to him with an ill intention to grab the disputed land, he filed false case against the accused only to bend them compromise in civil suits, he can grab the land easily and also harass them mentally. Pw.1 further stated that his other two younger brothers also filed complaint and civil cases against the accused and denied the suggestion that he filed false case against the accused.
13.Lw.2/Pw.2/B.Parsharamulu deposed that he know A1&A2, A1 is son of A2 and Pw.1 is his junior paternal uncle and one day about four years back, Pw.1 was fixing fencing sticks with the help of labour in his land situated in Sy.no. 14/B at Renikunta village and at present Pw.1 is having land to an extent of 15gts in the said survey number and at that time, A1 came along with A2 and his mother and removed fencing sticks and abused Pw.1 stating that the land belongs to them and he damaged nearly about 20 fencing sticks and also tried to assault Pw.1 with a stone and A1 threatened Pw.1 to kill him.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.2 stated that Lws. 4 and 5 were brought Pw.1 only and denied the suggestion that he did not state to police in his Sec.161 Cr.p.C. statement that accused beat
Pw.1 with a stone. pw.2 further stated that himself, Pw.1, Lws. 4 and 5 7 were present and he know and seen that pw.1 is having patta with regard to land in sy.no. 14/B and that prior to this case, Pw.1 got registered the said land from one Vasala Janardhan and that the original owner of disputed land is one Vasala Janardhan. Pw.2 denied the suggestion that he stated to police in that accused brought Lws. 4 and 5 to the disputed land for digging pits. Pw.2 further stated that he is doing agriculture in the land of Pw.1 on Koulu basis and denied the suggestion that he do not know anything about the case and he is giving false evidence as tutored by Pw.1.
14. Lw.3/Pw.3 Parsharamulu deposed that he know Pws.1 and 2 and
Lws.4 to 8, as well as A1&A2, they are all agnates and same villagers and about 7 years back at about 11.00 AM, when Pw.1 was erecting the stones for compound wall of land of Pw.1, A.1 came there and thrown stone on Pw.1 stating that Pw.1 do not own land there and the said stone has fallen aside due to which Pw.1 was saved and as there was chance of quarrel among Pw.1 and A.1, he came out from that place.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.3 stated that he do not know the descriptive particulars and ownership of title over the land by Pw.1 and A.1. Pw.3 denied the suggestion that he has not stated to police that, the said incident occurred at about 11.00 AM and that he has not stated to police that during the relevant time, Pw.1 was erecting stones on his land. Pw.3 further stated that he has not stated
before police as in Ex.D1 i.e., part of 161 CrPC statement stating that
on 01-07-2013 at 11.00 AM, himself and Lw.2 seen Pw.1 while erecting stones and denied the suggestion that he has not stated to police that
A.1 thrown stone on Pw.1, himself and Pw.1 were side by side when the said incident took place and that A.1 never thrown any stone on Pw.1.
Pw.3 further stated that the said quarrel took place in 14-B survey number land and he has share of land in said survey number and he owns Ac.0-05 guntas of land in 14-B survey number and that the land 8 in 14-B survey number was owned by V.Janardhan. Pw.3 volunteered that subsequently they purchased the same. Pw.3 further stated that his father filed a civil suit against A.1 and that the said civil suit is filed as A.2 got registered the land in survey No.14-B on his name by purchasing the same from V.Janardhan. Pw.3 denied the suggestion that in view of pendency of civil case and to brought pressure on accused to compromise the said case, they all together foisted a false case against accused. Pw.3 further stated that he do not remember the day on which police examined him at the scene of offence.
15.Lw.5/Pw.4/Chandraiah deposed that he know Lws.1 to 4, Lw.6 to 8 and A.1 &A.2, they are all his villagers and about six years back at about 11.00 AM, when he has been to coolie work to erect stones at the land of Pw.1 on the instance of Pw.2, mean while, A.1 shouted at
Pws.1 & 2 stating why they have come there, and further stated that he is the owner of said land, thereafter, he left the place.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.4 stated that he has not stated before police as in Ex.D.2 i.e., Sec.161 CrPC statement stating that A.1 &A.2 called him to dig pits on 01-07-2013 at 11.00 AM, beside the house of A.1 and when he was digging pits, Lws.1 to 3 came there and that he is farm-servant of Pw.1. Pw.4 denied the suggestion that as he is farm servant of Pw.1, at his instance, he is deposing falsehood.
16.Lw.4/Pw.5/Balaiah deposed that he know Lws.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 and A.1 & A.2, they are all his villagers and about four years back, when he has been to coolie work to erect stones at the land of Pws.1, 2 at their instance, he has been to the said place at 9.00 AM and he digged the pits and stones were laid in the pit and by then, A.1 came there and asked them to leave the place and they left the place and
A.1 brought stone and thrown on the Kadi (erected stone) and shouted 9 stating them to leave the place and police never examined him nor recorded his statement.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.5 stated that he has not stated before police as in Ex.D.3 i.e., Sec.161 CrPC statement stating that A.1 & A.2 called him to dig pits on 01-07-2013 at 11.00 AM beside the house of A.1, and when he was digging pits, by the time
A.1, A.2, Pws.1 and 2, himself and Pw.4 were there, when A.1 came to them and that the house of A.1 is adjacent to the said place. Pw.5 denied the suggestion that at the instance of Pw.1, he is deposing falsehood.
17.Lw.7/Pw.6/Thirupathi deposed that he know Lws.1 to 6, and Lw.8 and also know A.1 &A.2, they are all his villagers and during the year 2014, he came to know that A.2 registered a land illegally on his name, the said land was got registered by A.2 from V.Janardhan to an extent of Ac.0-14 guntas of land situated in survey No.14/B of Renikunta
Village and one year prior to that, quarrel took place between accused and Pw.1 when A.2 was constructing a compound wall in the said premises, hence, Pw.1 lodged report with police.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.6 stated that his father Jampaiah, Pw.1 &A.2 are own brothers and they inherited land in survey No.14/C from their grandfather and that land in survey
Nos.14/A, 14/B and 14/C is a compact land and that the land in survey
No.14/B was owned by one V.Janardhan and that V.Janardhan sold his land to A.2. Pw.6 denied the suggestion that as A.2 purchased land in survey No.14/B, himself along with his father and Pw.1 tried to disturb and that he has not stated to police that, during the year 2013 some quarrel took place between accused and Pw.1, when Pw.1 started construction of compound wall and that he is deposing falsehood.
18.Lw.11/Pw.7/Jagan Mohan Reddy deposed that previously, he was
Panchayath Secretary of Renikunta village and he issued report about 10 construction of some houses at Renikunta village and Ex.P4 is the report given by him on 18-10-2013 on the request of police.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.7 stated that he do not know in which survey number the houses of Pw,1, A.1, Pw.6 and
Lw.8 are in existence and he cannot identify their houses.
19.Lw.8/Pw.8/Muthavva deposed that she know Lws.1 to 7 and A.1&
A.2, they are all her villagers and about five years back, when she was erecting stones in her land, A.1 &A.2 came and broken the stones, hence, they lodged report with police and police never examined her nor recorded her statement.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.8 stated that she has not stated before police as in Ex.P5 i.e., Sec.161 CrPC statement and denied the suggestion that accused never broken the stones of her and she was trying to erect in her land and that she is deposing falsehood.
20.Lw.10/Pw.9/Srinivas deposed that he know Lw.9 another panch witness and Ex.P6 is his signature on C.D.F dated 08-08-2013 and he endorsed Ex.P6 signature during the year 2013 at Renikunta village, when Police LMD conducted panchanama at Renikunta stage and along with him, Lw.9 also endorsed his signature on C.D.F.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.9 stated that he do not know the contents of C.D.F and two days prior to conducting C.D.F, the quarrel took place at the said place. Pw.9 denied the suggestion that at the instance of police, he endorsed his signature vide Ex.P6 at
PS, and no panchanama was conducted at Renikunta village and at the instance of police, he is deposing falsehood.
21.Lw.12/Pw.10/I.Prabhakar Reddy, Retd. SI of Police deposed that on receipt of court referred complaint on 05-07-2013, he registered a case in Cr.No.159 of 2013, U/s. 323,447, 384, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC and issued F.I.R vide Ex.P7, thereafter, he recorded the statements of 11
Lws.1 to 8 and proceeded to the scene of offence, secured Lws.9 & 10 and conducted scene of offence panchanama vide Ex.P8, thereafter, he collected Ex.P4 report from Pw.7 and after investigation, he filed charge sheet.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.10 stated that prior to court referred complaint, they have not received any report in respect of same at their PS and so also, his Higher authorities have not received any report pertaining to same and the private complaint referred to them was without verified affidavit and that he mentioned in charge sheet one V.Narayana executed the registered sale deed in favour of A.2 on 24-04-2012 and he has not enquired with V.Narayana, in fact, he has not seen said V.Narayana and the registered sale deed in favour of A.2 on 24-04-2012 by said V.Narayana and that as per his investigation, the seller and buyer cheated Sub-Registrar, Husnabad and he do not know the documents basing on which he concluded that the seller and buyer cheated Sub-Registrar and as per Ex.P4, he came to conclusion that the seller and buyer cheated Sub-Registrar in respect of land in survey No.14/B and the owner of land in survey
No.14/B is A.2 herein and Pw.1 is the owner of land in survey No.14/B, basing on Ex.P4, he could say Pw.1 is the owner of land in survey
No.14/B and he cannot say basing on what document he came to conclusion that Pw.1 is the owner of land in survey No.14/B and he cannot say how he came to conclude that the place where alleged dispute took place is the land of Pw.1 and he has not mentioned the quantity of damage sustained by Pw.1 and Pw.1 called Lws.4 and 5 for coolie work on the alleged date of incident as per his investigation and that Pw.1 categorically mentioned in his private complaint that as on that day a status-quo was in existence in respect of said land and Pw.1 called Lw.4 and 5 as labourers to erect boundary on the land wherein status-quo was in existence and he followed the order of civil court and 12 issued F.I.R. Pw.10 denied the suggestion that the case is to be registered against Pw.1 whom violated the status-quo order and was erecting compound wall during the substance of status-quo at the disputed site. Pw.10 further stated that Lw.4 and 5 stated that Pw.1 called them for coolie work and denied the suggestion that though
Lw.4 and 5 stated that, accused called them for coolie work on the said date intentionally, he took down the same in reverse stating that Pw.1 called them for coolie work and a false case is foisted against accused.
Pw.10 further stated that Pw.1 has not stated in the presence of Pw.4 & 5 at the place of incident during the relevant time in his private complaint or Sec.161 CrPC statement and denied the suggestion that to grab the land of A.2, they colluded with Pw.1 and foisted a false case against accused and also denied that A.1 &A.2 never trespassed into the land of Pw.1, never beat or threatened Pw.1 at any point of time and even Pw.7 has not mentioned regarding the survey numbers in his report and that C.D.F is prepared for the purpose of case without visiting the place and that they caused damage to accused by foisting the false case against them.
The evidence of Lw.6/Malla Reddy, stated to be circumstantial witness, Lw.9/Ramulu, stated to be panch witness for CDF is given up by the learned APP.
22.The undisputed fact is that, Pw.1, A1 and father of Pw.6 are own brothers and a civil case is pending in respect of land in Sy.No. 14/B stated to have been purchased by Pw.1, A2 and father of Pw.6 and a dispute is existing in respect of said land, a status-quo order was in existence as on 1-7-2013 in respect of said land.
23.Pw.1 stated to be the complainant who filed the private complaint before the court initially stated in Ex.P1 private complaint that on 1-7-2013 when Pw.1 along with Pw.2 and 3 were standing in the disputed land, A1&A2 came to the said land along with their men at 13 11.00 a.m., and forcibly dug the land of pw.1 and installed stones and on seeing the same, Pw.1 resisted and requested A1&A2 not to trespass into their land, then A1 caught hold the collar of Pw.1 and beat him with hands and dragged him on the ground by abusing in filthy language, insulted him and criminally intimidated him by threatening that he will see the end of Pw.1 at any time in future and those who were accompanied Pw.1 rescued from the hands of A1, whereas during the course of chief examination, Pw.1 stated that Pw.1 along with his brothers i.e., A2 and father of Pw.6 purchased 27gts of land in Sy.No. 14/B and due to laying of Rajiv Rahadari road, they lost 14gts of land in the said survey number and after that, the three brothers took equal shares of remaining land, A2 and father of Pw.6 constructed their respective houses in their respective lands and Pw.1 erected stone poles around his land and in the year 2012, without knowledge and consent of Pw.1, A2 got registered the land to an extent of 16gts through Vasala Janardhan, who is son of vendor Vasala
Narayana and on knowing the same, the father of Pw.6 and Pw.1 went and questioned the accused and the accused neglected and stated to do whatever they like and a suit was filed in respect of same in Junior
Civil Judge's court, Karimnagar and obtained status-quo order and
during the pendency of status-quo order, A2 sold 2gts of land to
L.Jagadeeshwar and fixed boundaries to 2gts of land and accused disturbed the boundary stones of land of Pw.1, and removed the stone poles from their land and threatened Pw.1 with dire consequences and
A1 also tried to assault Pw.1 with a stone, hence Pw.1 lodged a private complaint i.e., Ex.P1. Thus, there is lot of variation in the allegation raised by Pw.1 against accused in the private complaint i.e., Ex.P1 and in the chief examination of Pw.1, whereas in Ex.P1, Pw.1 stated that A1 caught hold the collar of Pw.1, beat him with hands and dragged him on the ground by abusing in filthy language, insulted him and 14 criminally intimidated by threatening him. Whereas during the course of chief examination, Pw.1 stated that A1 tried to assault Pw.1 with stone and threatened him and in Ex.P1. Pw.1 categorically stated that
A1&A2 trespassed into the land of Pw.1 along with their men and installed stones and on seeing the same when Pw.1 resisted and questioned A1&A2, they caught the collar of Pw.1 and beat him, whereas it is stated during the chief examination that the accused persons disturbed the boundary stones of land of Pw.1 and Ex.P2 is the
CC of sale deed dated 25-4-2012 and Ex.P3 is CC of Status-quo order issued in favour of Pw.1.
During the course of cross examination, Pw.1 categorically stated that Pw.1 brought Lw.4/Pw.5 and Lw.5/Pw.4 to the scene of offence, when A1 was dismantling the fencing poles and on the date of alleged dispute Pw.1, Lws. 2 to 5 were erecting poles at the scene of offence and Pw.1 do not know whether status-quo order permitted him to erect poles or not.
Thus from the admission of Pw.1, it is crystal clear that during the pendency of status-quo orders which were in existence as per
Ex.P3, Pw.1 was erecting stones in the disputed site with the help of
Lw.2 to 5 and Pw.1 himself brought Pw.4 and 5 to the disputed land for erecting poles at the scene of offence.
24.Pws.2 and 3 stated to be the sons of brothers of Pw.1 and eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Pw.2 stated that when Pw.1 was fixing fencing stones with the help of labour in his land in sy.no. 14/B,
A1&A2 along with mother of Pw.1 removed fencing sticks and abused
Pw.1 stating that the land belongs to them and damaged about 20 fencing sticks and tried to assault Pw.1 with a stone and A1 threatened to kill Pw.1. Pw.2 also admitted that Pw.4 and 5 were brought by Pw.1 to the scene of offence and further Pw.2 admitted that prior to this case, Pw.1 got registered the land from V.Janardhan, original owner of 15 disputed land and even Pw.2 admitted that he came to know that A2 got registered the disputed land from V.Janardhan.
25.Pw.3 stated to be another eye witness also stated that when Pw.1 was erecting stones for compound wall of land of Pw.1, A1 came there and thrown stones on Pw.1 stating that Pw.1 did not own land there and said stone has fallen aside, due to which Pw.1 was saved and as there was chance of quarrel among Pw.1 and A1, Pw.3 came out from that place and Pw.3 admitted that he do not know the descriptive particulars and ownership of title over the land. Pw.3 categorically stated that he has not stated before police as in Ex.D1 i.e., part of
Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 stating that on 1-7-2013 at 11.00 a.m., Pw.3 and Lw.2, son of Pw.1 seen Pw.1 while erecting stones.
Thus, there is contradiction in the evidence of Pw.3 with that of his
Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement and Pw.3 categorically stated that Pw.3 and 4 were side by side when the said incident took place and Pw.3 possessed share of land in the said survey number and Pw.3 own 5gts of land in Sy.No. 14/B and the said land in Sy.no. 14/B was owned by one V.Janardhan and father of Pw.3 filed a suit against A1, as A2 got registered the land in sy.no. 14/B on his name by purchasing the same from Vasala Janardhan.
Thus, from the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3, it is clear that A2 got registered the land in Sy.no. 14/B from Vasala Janardhan and in respect of same, a civil suit is pending and Pw.2 is farm servant of Pw.1 and
Pws. 2 and 3 are the nephews of Pw.1 and even Pw.3 own some land in sy.no. 14/B and in respect of which a civil suit is pending and the said civil suit was filed by father of pw.3 against A1 and though Pws. 1 to 3 stated that A1 tried to assault Pw.1 with a stone and the said stone has fallen aside, the said allegation of Pws. 1 to 3 can not be relied on by the court basing on their oral evidence and Pws. 1 to 3 are all interested witnesses and Pws. 1 to 3 categorically admitted that Pws. 4 16 and 5 who are stated to be labour for erecting stones brought by Pw.1 and erecting the stones in the disputed land during the pendency of status-quo order as per Ex.P3 and further it is not stated in Ex.P1, that accused tried to assault Pw.1 with stone, hence the said allegation of throwing stone on Pw.1 by accused appears to be an improvement made subsequently by Pw.1 to 3, being the interested witnesses.
26.Pws. 4 and 5, stated to be eye witnesses categorically stated that they have been to coolie work on to the land of Pw.1 at the instance of Pws. 1 and 2 and Pw.5 stated that when he digged the pits and stones were laid in the pits, thereafter, A1 shouted at Pws. 4 and 5 stating that why they have come there and A1 is the owner of said land, hence Pw.4 left the place. Pw.5 stated that A1 came there and asked them to leave the place, hence they left the place and A1 brought the stone and thrown on the kadi (erected stone) and shouted them to leave the place.
Thus, from the evidence of Pw.4 and 5, who are independent eye witnesses it is clear that Pws. 1 and 2 brought Pw.4 and 5 on collie work to erect stones on the disputed land, thereafter A1 came there and asked them to leave the place and thrown a stone on the kadi (erected stone). Though Pws. 1 to 3 stated that A1 tried to assault
Pw.1 with stone, but Pws. 4 and 5 categorically stated that A1 thrown a stone on the erected stone i.e., Kadi stating them to leave the place and Pws. 4 and 5 categorically stated that they have not stated before police as in Ex.D2 and D3 i.e., Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws. 4 and 5 respectively stating that A1&A2 called them to dig pits on 1-7-2013 at 11.00 a.m., inside the house of A1 and when they dig the pits, Lws.
1 to 3 came there, thus there is wide contradiction in the Sec.161
Cr.P.C. statements of Pws. 4 and 5 with that of their evidence deposed
before the court.
17
27.Though, it is the case of prosecution that accused brought Pws. 4 and 5 to the disputed site to dig pits and erect stones on the disputed land during the pendency of status-quo order in respect of said land, which is admitted by Pws. 1 to 3 and even Pws. 4 & 5 that Pws. 4&5 were brought to the disputed land as coolie workers by Pw.1 to erect stones by digging pits in the disputed land .
28.Pw.6 stated that during the year 2012, he came to know that A2 registered the land illegally on his name from V.Janardhan to an extent of 14gts situated in sy.no. 14/B at Renikunta village and one year prior to that a quarrel took place between the accused and Pw.1 when A2 was constructing a compound wall in the said premises. Pw.6 categorically stated that the father of Pw.6 by name Jampaiah and Pw.1 & A2 are own brothers and they inherited land in sy.no. 14/C from their grand father and that the land in Sy.no. 14/A,14/B and 14/C is a compact land and that in sy.no. 14/B was owned by one Janardhan and said Janardhan sold his land to A2.
29.The evidence of Pw.7 stated to be Panchayat Secretary stated that he issued report about construction of some houses at Renikunta village and Ex.P4 is report given by Pw.7 on 18-10-2013 on the request of police and Pw.7 admitted that he do not know in which survey number, the house of Pw.1, A1, Pw.6 and Lw.8 are in existence and he can not identify their houses.
30.Pw.8 stated that Lws. 1 to 7, A1&A2 are her villagers and about 5 years back when she was erecting stones, A1&A2 came and broken the stones, hence they lodged report and police never examined her nor recorded her statement and she never stated before police as in Ex.P5 i.e., Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8.
Thus, the evidence of Pws. 7 and 8 is no way useful to prove the case of prosecution.
18
31. Pw.9 stated that Ex.P6 is his signature on CDF prepared on 8-8- 2013 at Renikunta village by LMD police and along with him, Lw.9 also endorsed his signature. Thus, the evidence of Pw.9 reveals that some quarrel took place in Renikunta village and police prepared CDF.
32.The evidence of Pw.10, investigating officer is mechanical.
33.Though, it is the case of prosecution that A2 got registered the land in sy.no. 14/B illegally from V.janardhan. It is admitted by Pw.1 to 3 and Pw.6 that one Janardhan is the owner of land in sy.no. 14/B and said Janardhan sold the land to A2 and as alleged by prosecution and
Pw.1. If A2 would have got fabricated the documents and registered the land on his name through V.Janardhan, who for a moment if assumed to be not the owner of said land, the said V.Janardhan and his father V.Narayana would have been either cited as witnesses or as accused and Pw.10/investigating officer categorically admitted that he mentioned in the charge sheet that one Narayana executed a registered sale deed on 24-4-2012, but he has not enquired with
Narayana and he has not seen said Narayana and registered sale deed executed in favour of A2 on 24-4-2012 and Pw.10 stated that as per his investigation, the seller and buyer cheated Sub-Registrar, Husnabad and Pw.10 categorically admitted that he do not know the documents basing on which he concluded that seller and buyer cheated the
Registrar and as per Ex.P4, he came to conclusion that seller and buyer cheated Sub-Registrar in respect of Sy.No. 14/B and the owner of land in sy.no. 14/B is A2 and Pw.1, is the owner of land in Sy.No. 14/B basing on Ex.P4. Pw.10 further stated that he cannot say basing on what document, he came to conclusion that Pw.1 is owner of Sy.No. 14/B and he can not say how he conclude that the place where alleged dispute took place is the land of Pw.1 and he has not mentioned the quantity of damage sustained by Pw.1. Thus, from the admission of Pw.10, it is crystal clear that no reason stated by Pw.10 alleging that A2 got 19 registered the land illegally from Janardhan. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that A2 got land in sy.no.1 4/B registered on his name illegally. Pw.10 also admitted that Pw.1 called Lws. 4 and 5 for coolie work on the alleged date of incident as per his investigation and as on said date, status-quo order was in existence in respect of said land and Pws. 4&5 were brought as labour to erect boundary on the land, wherein status-quo was in existence and Pw.1 denied the suggestion that a case is to be registered against Pw.1, who violated the status-quo order and was erecting poles during the subsistence of status-quo.
Thus, from the evidence of Pw.10, it is crystal clear to the court that Pw.10 being the investigating officer was not in a position to say what made him to conclude that A1 and A2 committed the alleged offences against Pw.1 and Pw.10 further admitted that Pws. 4 and 5 stated that Pw.1 called them to attend coolie work.
34.Though the allegations levelled against A1&A2 is that the buyer and seller intentionally cheated the Sub-Registrar, Husnabad and A2 got registered the land in sy.no. 14/B from Vasala Janardhan, thereafter, sold 2gts of land to another person which was witnessed by
A1. The prosecution failed to establish the said offences against the accused as it is admitted by Pws. 1 to 3 and Pw.6 that one Vasala
Janardhan and his father Narayana was the owner of disputed land and they were not cited as witnesses before the court to examine them and even Pw.10 has not examined Janardhan and Narayana and has not even seen the alleged fabricated documents and not filed the alleged fabricated documents into court and further the extent of alleged damage stated to have been sustained by Pw.1 is not stated
before the court, more over it is admitted by Pws. 1 to 5 that when
status-quo order was in existence, Pw.1 brought Pws. 4 and 5 on coolie work on 1-7-2013 to erect stones in the disputed cite during the 20 pendency of status-quo, which is not permissible and in view of assault on Pw.1 with stone by accused is also not established and there is contradiction in the evidence of said throwing of stone by accused on
Pw.1 as Pws. 1 to 3 stated that accused tried to throw a stone on Pw.1 and the said stone has fallen aside, but Pws. 4 & 5 categorically stated that accused thrown a stone on kadi which was erected by them at the instance of Pw.1 at the disputed land. Thus, Pws. 1 to 3, who are all interested witnesses and there is no corroboration in their evidence with one another and with the allegations raised in Ex.P1 report and from the admission of Pw.1 and Ex.P3, it is crystal clear that a civil dispute is already pending between accused and Pw.1 and a status-quo order was in existence as on the date of filing of suit and in view of previous enmity, as none of the independent witnesses other than Pws.
1 to 3, who are interested witnesses do not support the prosecution case in any angle, hence accused are entitled for benefit of doubt for the offences punishable U/ss.447,323,420,504 and 506 of IPC. Point answered accordingly.
24.IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/ss. 447,323,420,504 and 506 of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.
Dictated to the Stenographer,Gr-II, transcribed, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of March, 2019.
Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Excise),Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:
Pw.1: Veeraiah-None- Pw.2: B.Parsharamulu Pw.3: B.Parsharamulu Pw.4: B.Chandraiah Pw.5: B.Balaiah 21
Pw.6: B.Thirupathi Pw.7: Ch.Jagan Mohan Reddy Pw.8: B.Muthavva Pw.9: T.Srinivas Pw.10: I.Prabhakar Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Private complaint Ex.P.2:C.C. of sale deed No. 1582/2012, dated 25-4-2012 Ex.P.3: C.C. of Status-quo order Ex.P.4:Report given by Pw.7 on 18-10-2013 Ex.P.5:Sec.161 Cr.p.C. statement of Pw.8 Ex.P6:Signature of Pw.9 on CDF Ex.P7:First information Report Ex.P8:Crime details form
For Defence:
Ex.D1Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 Ex.D2Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4 Ex.D3Part of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :
-Nil-
Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Excise, Karimnagar.