C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 1 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.109/2018 (Old CC No.279/2017 of III Metropolitan
Magistrates Court, Visakhapatnam) on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum-
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
1. Date of Offence: prior to 24.09.2014
2. Date of report: 20.07.2017
3. Date of arrest of accused No.1 to 4: 05.10.2015 Date of arrest of accused No.8: 13.03.2017 Date of arrest of accused No.7: 14.03.2017 Date of arrest of accused No.6: 23.04.2017
4. Date of release of accused No.1 to 4 : 07.10.2015 Date of release of accused No.5: 19.10.2015 Date of release of accused No.6 to 8: 23.04.2017
5. Date of commencement of trial: 05.07.2019
6. Date of close of trial: 20.04.2021
7. Date of judgment: 22 .04.2021
8. Complainant: State : Inspector of Police, Pendurthi (Law & Order) Police Station, Visakhapatnam City
9. Accused : 1. Uppili Appala Raju, S/o Late Nagamalayya, Hindu, aged about 43 years, C/Yadava, R/o. D.No.4-31, Bandamvaripalem village, Akkireddipalem, Pendurthy.
2. Patrapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Demudu, Hindu, aged about 39 years,C/Yadava,R/o.D.No.6-21, K.Kotapadu, Gollaveedhi.
3. Sureddy Mahesh, S/o. Late Appala Naidu, Hindu, aged about 39 years, C/K. Velama, R/o. Kothapeta village, Devarapalli Mandal.
4. Palla Appa Rao, S/o. Pedda Demudu, Hindu, aged about 37 years, C/Yadava, D.No.5-178, K. Kotapadu.
5. Bokam Venkata Rao Naidu, S/o. Ramu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 44 years, C/Velama, R/o. Gullepalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal.
6. Gandi Naga Raju, S/o. Ravalayyaa, Hindu, aged about 46 years, C/SC mala, R/o.Gullepalli Village, Sabbavaram Mandal.
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 2 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
7. Thota Atchibabu, S/o. Late Simchalam, Hindu, aged about 47 years, C/SC Mala, R/o.Devarapalli Mandal.
8. Uppili Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Nagamalayya, Hindu aged about 43 years, C/Yadava, R/o.D.No.4-31, Bandamvaripalem village, Akkireddipalem, Pendurthi.
10. Offence : Under Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
12. Finding of court : Found not guilty
13. Sentence or order : Accused No.1 to 8 are found not guilty of the offence Under
Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Since no prop- erty was produced in this case, there is no order with regard to the case property.
14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on cognizance on 09.10.2017 for the offence Under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code against the accused. On 18.06.2018 accused were present. Copies of all documents were furnished to them
Under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. On 19.07.2018 accused were examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, they pleaded not guilty, charges were framed Under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code against the
Accused read over and explained to them in Telugu, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were marked. On 07.04.2021 the accused were examined Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, they denied the incriminating material against the accused and reported no defense evidence. On 12.04.2021 heard arguments of learned defense counsel. On 16.04.2021 heard arguments of learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor in part and on 20.04.2021 heard for further arguments of learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. On 22.04.2021 Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment.
Hence the delay.
Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Copy Submitted to :
The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City.
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 3 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Sri CH.SRINIVASA BABU,
Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
Thurseday this the 22nd day of April, 2021
Calendar Case No. 109 of 2018
(Old CC No.279/2017 of III Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam)
Between:
State : Inspector of Police, Pendurthi (Law & Order Police
Station, Visakhapatnam City. ... Complainant.
And
1. Uppili Appala Raju, S/o Late Nagamalayya, Hindu, aged about 43 years, C/Yadava, R/o. D.No.4-31, Bandamvaripalem village, Akkireddipalem, Pendurthy.
2. Patrapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o Demudu, Hindu, aged about 39 years, C/Yadava, R/o. D.No.6-21, K.Kotapadu, Gollaveedhi.
3. Sureddy Mahesh, S/o. Late Appala Naidu, Hindu, aged about 39 years, C/K. Velama, R/o. Kothapeta village, Devarapalli Mandal.
4. Palla Appa Rao, S/o. Pedda Demudu, Hindu, aged about 37 years, C/Yadava, D.No.5-178, K. Kotapadu.
5. Bokam Venkata Rao Naidu, S/o. Ramu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 44 years, C/Velama, R/o. Gullepalli village, Sabbavaram Mandal.
6. Gandi Naga Raju, S/o. Ravalayyaa, Hindu, aged about 46 years, C/SC mala, R/o.Gullepalli Village, Sabbavaram Mandal.
7. Thota Atchibabu, S/o. Late Simchalam, Hindu, aged about 47 years, C/SC Mala, R/o.Devarapalli Mandal.
8. Uppili Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Nagamalayya, Hindu aged about 43 years, C/Yadava, R/o.D.No.4-31, Bandamvaripalem village, Akkireddipalem, Pendurthi. …. Accused.
This case coming on 20.04.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M. Manoj Kumar and
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 4 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
Sri M. Ranga Rao, Learned Advocates for Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :
// J U D G M E N T \\
1.The Inspector of Police, Pendurthi (Law and Order) Police station,
Visakhapatnam City filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence Under
Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code in Crime Number 404/2015.
2.The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that, P.W.4 and P.W.6 are the children of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the nephew of P.W.1 working as Manager in Union Bank of India,
Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. P.W.1 was in search for purchasing site with his relatives from his retirement benefits and came to contact with accused No.6 and 7 who in connivance with accused No.1 approached P.W.1 and 5 apprised and made believe them with sweet words and prospect in purchasing disputed site which were already registered in favour of accused No.2 to 5 by accused No.1 and 8 by concealing the civil suit pending in O.S. No. 293/2014 on the file Honnourable VII Additional District Judge
Court, Visakhapatnam. Accused No.1 being in real estate business in connivance with his brother accused No.8 as vendor sold away the disputed property and got executed in favour of accused No.2 to 5 bearing document number 5022/2012. The disputed property situated in his survey No.115/20 of Rajayyapeta, Pendurthi Mandal covering in an extent of 1500 sq. yards in four bits. Accused No.2 to 5 have came to know about the civil dispute and pressurized accused No.1,8 and mediators i.e., accused No.6 and 7 to return their money for which they informed that they would see another party. While so,
P.W.1 has deliberations with accused No.1,6 and 7 and accepted to purchase the property by paying sale consideration to accused No.2 to 5. On 24.09.2014 accused
No.2 to 5 have executed two registered document bearing documents 4419/2014 and 4420/2014 in favour of P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.4 in an extent of 250 sq. yards each situated in survey No.115/20 of Rajayyapeta and P.W.1 has paid consideration of
Rs.20,00,000/- to accused No.2 and 5, accused No.1 and 6 have attested as witnesses.
After taking delivery of vacant site of 500 sq. yards P.W.1 has spent Rs.15,00,000/- for
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 5 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP development of site and constructed shed and applied for levy of house tax and electrical service connection.
3.Accused No.1 and 7 have also approached P.W.5 many times appraised him of the prospects in purchasing schedule site at Bandavanipalem with clear title and have shown registered document bearing number 5022/2012 executed by accused No.1 and 8 in favour of accused No.2 to 5 by concealing the fact that the property is in dispute.
After deliberations with accused No.2 to 5 through accused No.1 and 7, P.W.5 offered sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- to accused No.2 to 5 on 24.09.2014 they executed two registered documents bearing document numbers 4421/2014 and 4422/2014 for an extent of 300 sq. yards and 700 sq. yards respectively situated in survey No.115/20 of
Rajayyapeta, accused No.1 and 6 have attested the said documents having knowledge about the civil suit filed by P.W.9 and G. Satyavathi. P.W.1 leveled the site and applied for construction of compound wall and tried to apply plan on that he came to know about the civil suit in OS.No.293/2014 and that the Revenue officials have refused to levy taxes and the Electrical Department has refused to give electrical connection. On 03.10.2015 P.W.1 has submitted report to P.W.16, he registered the same as a case in
Crime Number 404/2015 Under Section 420 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code and submitted copies to all concerned, he took up investigation in this case, examined the witnesses. On 06.10.2015, P.W.5 has lodged the complaint vide receipt number 1303/2015 and the same was entered in the relevant record as the contents of the said complaint are same with that of the report given by P.W.1, he examined P.W.5 and recorded his statement. P.W.16 has took up further examination the other witnesses.
During the course of investigation on 05.10.2015 he arrested accused No.1 to 4 and sent them to Honourable court for judicial remand. Accused No.5 was granted
Anticipatory bail on 19.10.2015 by the Honourable I Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge Court, Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.1761/2015. On 13.03.2017, 14.04.2017,
23.04.2017 P.W.17 has issued notices under Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code to the accused No.8,7, and 6 respectively. After completion of investigation P.W.17 has filed charge sheet.
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 6 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
4.This case was taken cognizance of the offence Under Sections 420 r/w 120-B of
Indian Penal Code against Accused. On appearance of accused, copies of all documents as required Under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code were furnished to them. When examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence, the accused pleaded not guilty of the offence. Charges were framed
Under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code against the Accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused have pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.
5.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. The evidence of Grandhi Satyavathi was closed on 29.10.2020 in view of the report failed by prosection. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code they denied the incriminating material found against them and reported no defense evidence.
6.Heard the arguments of both sides.
7.On behalf of prosecution, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that P.W.1 has purchased the property from accused No.2 to 5 under Ex.P2 and P.3 by paying consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- to them and spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for development of the property and has constructed a thatched shed, when he applied for electricity connection, the concerned authorities have not responded on that he ap- proached the Higher officials and he came to know about civil suit pending before the
Honourable District Court, Visakhapatnam and he approached accused No.1 to 5 but
they failed to pay the amount and that the accused have conspired together and sup- pressed the facts and have sold the property. P.Ws.4 and 6 who are sons of P.W.1 have corroborated with that of the evidence of P.W.1 and they categorically deposed before this court about the acts of cheating by the accused. P.W.5 who is another victim in this case has deposed that believing the words of accused No.1 and 7 he purchased the property covered under Ex.P7 and P8 by paying consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- and he came to know about the civil suit pending before the court and that the accused have
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 7 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP cheated him. P.W.7 has deposed before this court that P.W.1 has approached the
Panchayath authorities Rajayyapeta for levy of house tax to his property and that P.W.8 has refused to levy the tax as the property is in the dispute. P.W.8 has corroborated with that of the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.9 has deposed that his property was sold away by the accused by creating false document and that he deposed before this court about the pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 293/2014. P.W.10 has deposed before this court that the accused No. 2 to 5 have executed Ex.P2, P3, P7 and P8 and that he was the scribe of the said documents. P.W.11 has deposed that at the request of accused No.5 he scribed Ex.P4 and that Ex.P4 was executed by accused No.1 and 8 in favour of accused No.5 and others. P.W.12 has deposed before this court about the registration of Exs.P2, P3 and P7 in Sub Registrar Office, Pendurthi. P.W.13 has deposed before this court about the survey report given by him to P.W.14. P.W.14 has corroborated with that of the evidence of P.W.13 and that Ex.P9 and P.10 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.15 has deposed that P.W.1 has applied for service connection and that
P.W.9 has informed about the civil case and that he informed P.W.1 to obtained no objection certificate for providing electricity connection. P.Ws. 16 and 17 have deposed
before this court about their role of investigation. The evidence of material witnesses
examined on behalf of prosecution coupled with Ex.P.1 to P4, Ex.P7 and P.11 establishes the case of the prosecution and the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the accused are liable for punishment according to law.
8.On the other hand, the Learned defense counsel has argued that the prosecution has not placed any material before this court to show that a civil suit in
O.S.No.293/2014 was pending before the Honourable VII Additional District Judge
Court, Visakhapatnam. Though the prosecution has alleged that P.W.1 has invested an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for developing the land there is no material placed before this court to that affect. There are several admissions in the evidence of P.W.1 to show that the prosecution has not placed any documentary proof with regard to the alleged investment and the alleged enquiry report by vigilance officer. P.W.2 and 3 have not
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 8 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP supported the case of prosecution and they were declared as hostile by the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor. The evidence of P.W4 and 6 is not corroborated with that of the evidence of P.W.1 and they have deposed inconsistent evidence beyond the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.5 has deposed that he has submitted separate report to the police the Investigating Officer has not produced the said report before this court and that P.W.5 has failed to establish his financial capacity to purchase the property by spending an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. The evidence of P.W.7 will not help the case of the prosecution as there is no material placed before this court to show that P.W.1 has submitted application for Leavy of Tax. Though P.W.9 has deposed that he is the absolute owner of the property in survey No.112/11 of Bandamvanipalem of
Rajayyapeta, the prosecution has not secured any document to that affect and P.W.9 has admitted that the property in survey No.112/11 and 115/20 are different. The evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.14 will not help the case of the prosecution as the said witnesses have categorically deposed that they inspected the property in survey
No.115/20 of Rajayyapeta, but not survey No.112/11. The prosecution has not placed any authenticated material before this court that the accused have conspired together and have cheated P.W.1 and 5 and that there is no cogent and corroborative piece of evidence placed before this court to bring home the guilt of the accused, as such the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed the court to extend benefit of doubt in favour of accused.
9.Now the point for determination is
“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the Accused for
the offence under Sections 420 and 1 20-B of Indian Penal Code beyond all
reasonable doubt ?”
10.P O I N T :
The case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2014 that the accused have cheated
P.W.1, 4 and 6 by dishonestly inducing them to deliver the property covered under
Ex.P2 and P3 having knowledge that the property is in civil litigation and executed
Ex.P2, P3,P7 and P8 in favour of P.W.1, 4, 6 and 5 respectively and have conspired to- gether and received consideration from them and thereby the accused have committed
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 9 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP offence punishable Under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Whereas the case of defence is total denial of prosecution case.
11.So as to prove the charges alleged against the accused on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined. The case of the prosecution is that the property covered under Ex.P2 was purchased by P.W.1 and 6, the property covered under Ex.P3 was purchased by P.W.1 and 4 from accused No.2 to 5 and that the property covered under Ex.P7 and P8 was purchased by P.W.5 from accused No.2 to 5 and that all the accused have conspired together having knowledge about the pendency of civil suit in O.S.No.293/2014 on the file of Honourable VII Additional District Judge
Court, Visakhapatnam. P.W.1 has deposed that he has spent an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- for development of the property and paid consideration of
Rs.20,00,000/- to accused No.2 to 5. The evidence of P.W.5 is that he paid consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- to accused No.2 to 5. As the prosecution has alleged that the accused having knowledge about the civil suit have conspired together and sold away the property, it has to be verified by this court whether the prosecution is able to establish conspiracy by the accused whether the prosecution is able to place authenticated evidence before this court to that affect.
12. P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that, he purchased the property covered under Ex.P2 and P3 in survey No.115/20 of Rajayyapeta and he leveled the property and has constructed thatched shed, when he applied for electricity connection as the service connection was not provided he came to know about the civil suit and approached accused No.1 and that accused No.2 to 5 have promised that they will settle the matter, but as they failed to do so on that he submitted report. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 he has not deposed before this court, when he leveled the property, when he constructed thatched shed, when he engaged the watchman and when he applied for electricity connection and when he approached the accused for settlement of dispute. Except the year of purchase P.W.1 has not deposed before this court about the dates of the incident, which were narrated in his evidence. Though,
P.Ws.1, 4 to 6 have deposed that they came to know about the pendency of the civil suit
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 10 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP when applied for electricity service connection the prosecution has not placed the alleged application before this court. P.W.4 who is the son of P.W.1 has deposed a contra evidence stating that the application for electricity connection was rejected by
A.P.S.E.B and that he enquired about the dispute before the court and met Mandal
Revenue Officer, Chief Vigilance Officer, Additional Divisional Engineer, Electricity board and waited for a period of one year to obtain electricity connection later he negotiated with accused No.1 to 5. P.W.4 has categorically admitted in his evidence that there is no documentary proof to show that civil suit is pending in the court regarding property in dispute. P.W.6 who is another son of P.W.1 has deposed another version that they intended to start poultry and laid shed in the land and one Shetty used to obstruct their work stating that the site belongs to him and he approached the Panchayath Secretary for payment of tax and she refused the same, thereafter, he came to know the land was in dispute. P.W.1 and 4 have not deposed before this court about the obstruction of the work by Shetty as deposed by P.W.6. Though P.W.6 has deposed that he approached the Panchayath Secretary for payment of vacant tax and she refused to accept the same. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.8, she deposed that P.W.1 came to her office for mutation of house tax on that she went to the property and noticed thatched house which is not fit for residence and she informed P.W.1 that no objection certificate will be issued if there is permanent structure.
13.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, he never deposed before this court he went to the Panchayath Secretary or Panchayath President with a request to levy house tax.
Though P.W.7 has deposed that P.W.1 has came to the office and submitted application for levy of house tax no such application was placed before this court and the evidence of P.W.7 and 8 is contrary to each other. P.W.8 has deposed that P.W.1 has submitted application for mutation of house tax, whereas the evidence of P.W.7 is that P.W.1 has applied for levy of tax to the vacant site.
14.P.W.5 who is said to be another victim as per the case of the prosecution has deposed that he got acquaintance with accused No.7 and he introduced accused No.1, on that he purchased the property covered under Ex.P7 and P8 and he also introduced
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 11 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
P.W.1 and purchased the property. P.W.5 has deposed that P.W.9 has obstructed P.W.1 while leveling his site and gave a letter to the Electricity Department and objected for allotment of electricity connection. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 6 they have not deposed before this court about the alleged obstruction by P.W.9. Though,
P.W.5 has deposed that he deposited the sale consideration in the account of accused
No.2 to 5 the prosecution has not placed any material before this court to that affect.
P.W.5 has deposed that he lodged a separate report before the Station House Officer,
Pendurthi and his report was clubbed with existing report. On perusal of Ex.P1 there was no mention about report given by P.W.5 and the prosecution has not produced the report of P.W.5, which was said to be given to the police.
15.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.9 he deposed before this court that his property is situated in survey No.112/11 of Bandamvanipalem, Rajayyapeta panchayath covering in an extent of Ac.0.31 cents and that the accused have created false documents and sold away the property to 3rd parties and he informed P.W.1 and his sons about the pendency of civil suit in O.S.No.293/2014. Though, P.W.9 has deposed that the accused have created false documents he has not identified the accused who created false documents. P.W.9 has admitted that he filed suit on the file of Honourable
III Additional District Judge Court, Visakhapatnam claiming right over the property in survey No.112/11 and that the property covered under survey No.112/11 and the property covered under survey No.115/20 are different. On perusal of the Ex.P.2 to P5,
P7 and P8 the property is situated in survey No.115/11 of Rajayyapeta village, but not in survey No.112/11. P.W.13 has deposed before this court that he inspected the property situated in survey No.115/20 and mentioned about the physical features of the property and gave physical inspection report to P.W.14. P.W.14 has categorically deposed that the property in survey No.115/20 is private agricultural land covering in an extent of
Ac.0.31 cents and that there are two asbestos sheets shed and hand bore well and some coconut trees in the said property and Ex.P10 was marked through him. On perusal of Ex.P10 the Revenue officials have inspected the property covered in survey
No.115/20 of Rajayyapeta village, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 12 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP have sold away the property in survey No.112/11. Though P.W.17 has sent requisition to
P.W.14 to produce revenue record with regard to the property in dispute, P.W.14 has not sent any revenue record and he simply mentioned that there is a civil suit pending in
O.S,No.293/2014 on the file of Honourable VII Additional District Judge Court,
Visakhapatnam. The Investigating officer has not secured the suit proceedings in
O.S.No.293/2014 though the entire case of the prosecution is running around the said
civil suit.
16.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.12, she categorically deposed that Ex.P2 to
P4 and Ex.P7 were presented before her for registration and she registered the same.
P.Ws.12 to 14 have not deposed before this court that the property in dispute is situated in survey No.112/11 and they have categorically deposed that the property is situated in survey No.115/20. P.W.15 has deposed that he instructed Assistant Engineer, Pendurthi to go to property in survey No.115/20. The evidence of P.W.9 is that he filed the suit in
O.S.No.293/2014 claiming right over the property in survey No.112/11. It is not the case
of the prosecution that the property covered under survey No.112/11 was sold away to
P.W.1, 4 to 6. Though the prosecution has alleged that the accused have got knowledge about the civil suit and have sold the property to P.Ws.1, 4 to 6 the prosecution has not placed any documentary evidence before this court with regard to the civil suit in
O.S.No.293/2014. It is for the prosecution to establish that the accused have conspired
together and sold the property without having any right. However, the Revenue officials have inspected the property covered in survey No.115/20 of Rajayyapeta but not the property situated in survey No.112/11. In view of the discussion supra, the prosecution has not placed any authenticated evidence before this court that the accused have cheated P.Ws.1, 4 to 6 by conspiring with each other and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.
17. In the result, accused No.1 to 8 are found not guilty of the offence Under
Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 13 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. Since no prop- erty was produced in this case, there is no order with regard to the case property.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2021.
sd/-Ch.Srinivasababu
Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For prosecution :For defence:
PW1 : V. Subhash Chandra Sekhar --None-- PW2 : Bandham Atchibabu PW3 : Saripalli Bangarayya PW4 : B. Prudhviraj PW5 : Saketi Santosh PW6 : Gnana Pradeep PW7 : Kuppili Devi PW8 : P. Santhoshi PW9 : Grandhi Venkata Ramana PW10: R. Ramana PW11: A. Srinivasa Rao PW12: Y.Ranga Lakshmi PW13: M. Venkanna PW14: C.V.S. Panduranga Reddy PW15: B.K. Nadu PW16: K. Lakshmana Murthy PW17: J. Murali
No. of Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 :Report dated 03.02.2017 Ex.P.2 :Attested copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document number 4419/2014, dated 24.09.2014 Ex.P.3 :Attested copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing document number 4420/2014, dated 24.09.2014
Ex.P.4 :Attested copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 19.09.2021 Ex.P.5 :Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.6 :Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code statement of P.W.3
Ex.P.7 :Xerox copy of Sale deed bearing document number 4421/2014 dated 24.09.2014
Ex.P.8 :Xerox copy of Sale deed bearing document number 4422/2014 dated 24.09.2014
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 14 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP
Ex.P.9 :Requisition dated 04.02.2017 Ex.P.10 :Report submitted by P.W.14 in L.D number 59/2017/SA Ex.P.11 :First Information Report dated 03.10.2015
For defense:
--NIL--
sd/-Ch.Srinivasababu
Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
C.C. No.109/2018, Dt.22.04.2021 15 PJCJ-Cum-MM/VSP