C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
AT KOLLAPUR
Wednesday, On this 13th day of May, 2026
Present: MS. R. SHARNYA II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.
C.C. No. 321 of 2021
BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, represented through P.S. Pentlavelly. … Complainant. AND
A1.Borelli Nagarjuna S/o Ramudu, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture; A2.Suligiri Chinna Ramudu S/o Naganna, Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie; A3.Borelli Nagaraju S/o Ramudu, Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture; A4.Suligiri Nagaraju S/o Pedda Ramudu, Age: 26 years, Occ: Coolie; A5.Suligiri Pedda Kurumaiah S/o Guruswamy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Coolie; A1 to A5 are R/o Manchalakatta village of Pentlavelly mandal. A6.Nagalaxmi W/o Ramudu, Age: 32 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Gummadam village of Pebbair mandal. … Accused Nos.1 to 6. * * * * * This case came up before me for final hearing on 28.04.2026 in the presence of the Learned APP for the Prosecution and Sri. J.C. Kurumaiah, counsel for defence and the case having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This case is filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 13.01.2021 at 11:00 hours, the complainant, Sri Gudemoni Vishnumurthy S/o G. Edanna, Age: 38 years, R/o Manchalakatta Village, came to the Police Station, Pentlavelly and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that the complainant is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas situated in
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 2 of 19
Sy.No.96/16/A within the limits of his village, which has been under cultivation since the time of his grandfather. He had raised paddy snaps/transplantation in the said land. On 11.01.2021 at about 11:00 hours, the Accused Nos.1 to 6 criminally trespassed into the land of the complainant, damaged the standing paddy crop, and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant further stated that he attempted to resolve the matter before the village elders, but the same was in vain. Hence, he approached the Police
Station, Pentlavelly and requested to take legal action against the Accused persons.
3.Basing upon the complaint, LW-8/Sri M. Srinivas, SI of Police, registered a case in Crime No.04 of 2021 under section 447, 427 r/w 34 of
I.P.C, 1860 and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation, the
LW-9/Sri B. Shiva Shankar, S.I. of Police took up the entire CD file from LW-8, and filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences under section 447, 427 read with section 34 of IPC.
4.This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 447, 427 read with section 34 of I.P.C. against the Accused Nos.1 to 6 and summons were issued to them. On appearance, the Accused Nos.1 to 6 were furnished with case copies in compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C, 1973 and they were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., 1973. The charges against the Accused
Nos.1 to 6 for the offence under section 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 3 of 19
5.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
In order to establish the guilt of the Accused persons in trial, the
Learned A.P.P examined LW1/Gudemoni Vishnumurthy as PW1; LW2/G. Pullaiah as PW2; LW3/Gajula Ramakrishna as PW3; LW5/Gundelu Krishnaiah as PW4;
LW4/Juligiri Ushan @ Hussain as PW5; LW8/Sri M. Srinivas, SI of Police, who is one of the I.O. in this case, as PW6 through video conference and got Ex.P1 to
Ex.P5 marked. The evidence of LW6/Ragula Shankaraiah, LW7/Gudemoni
Kurumaiah and LW9/Sri B. Shiva Shankar, S.I. of Police, have been given up by the Learned A.P.P.
6.SECTION 313 CR.P.C. EXAMINATION :
After examining the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW6, the
Accused Nos.1 to 6 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, 1973. The incriminating material available against the Accused No.1 to 6 were read over and explained to them in vernacular (Telugu) and they were asked if they pleaded guilty. The Accused Nos.1 to 6 pleaded not guilty and stated that all the evidence and allegations of the prosecution were false.
7.DEFENCE EVIDENCE : NIL
8.ARGUMENTS :
The Learned A.P.P submitted to the court that a judgment may be passed basing on the evidence of PW1 and mentioned that PW1's evidence is supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW4 and that the I.O/PW6 had drafted the CDF cum scene of offence Panchanama and some prosecution witnesses turned hostile only because they belong to the same village as the accused
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 4 of 19 persons. The Learned A.P.P prayed for the conviction of the accused nos. 1 to 6 basing on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 and also basing on the material available on record. The defence counsel submitted that the complaint was lodged after a delay of two daysfor which no explanation was given by the de- facto complainant, there is already SC,ST case registered against the complainant against the de-facto complainant and the present case is filed as counter blast to the SC, ST case in order to harrass the accused persons, that the de-facto complainant did not file any Adangal/Pahani or Patta Certificate in the Court and even the police did not file any land documents of the revenue authority, no photos of the damaged crops were filed, that the de-facto complainnt gave no details with respect to the boundaries of the alleged trespassed land which he said was his own and that he did not mention to what extent of his entire 3 acres land Paddy crop was being grown.The defence counsel finally submitted that a false case was filed against the Accused nos.1 to 6 and prayed for their acquittal.
9.THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
i) Whether the Accused Nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the lands of the de-facto complainant/PW1 and committed the offences under section 447 (Criminal trespass), section 427(Mischief) r/w section 34 of IPC, 1860?
ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against
Accused Nos.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt?
iii) And to what result?
The above points are answered in the following way :
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 5 of 19
10.POINT NO.(i) : Whether the Accused Nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the lands of the de-facto complainant/PW1 and committed the offences under section 447 (Criminal trespass), section 427(Mischief) r/w section 34 of IPC, 1860 ?
The prosecution to prove its case has examined LW1 as PW1/the de- facto complainant, LW2 as PW2 and LW3 as PW3 who are the circumstantial witnesses, LW5 as PW4 and LW4 as PW5 who are the eye-witnesses to the offence committed by the accused persons; and LW8/one of the I.O of this case was examined through video conference as PW6 and Ex.P1/report given by
PW1/de facto complainant to the police, Ex.P2/Section 161 Cr.P.C, 1973 statement of PW3 recorded by the police, Ex.P3/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 recorded by the police, Ex.P4/F.I.R. and Ex.P5/CDF-cum-scene of offence panchnama were marked. The learned A.P.P had given up the evidence of LW6/R.Shankaraiah, LW7/G. Kurumaiah, and LW9/B. Shiva Shankar, S.I of
Police P.S, Pentlavelly (the second I.O) who filed the charge sheet in this case.
10.1.PW1 is the de-facto complainant, he stated in his chief examination that he knew LW2 to LW5/Pullaiah, Ramakrishna, Ushan @ Hussain, Krishnaiah.
4 years ago he went to his land which is situated in sy. No.96/18/2 an extent of
Ac.3-00gts for planting paddy snaps. Meanwhile A1 to A6 trespassed into his land and caused damage of paddy snaps and also abused him and tried to beat him. After 2 days of incident, he went to police station and lodged report.
Police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 is his report.
In his cross examination, he stated that he is a graduate and he lodged Ex.P1/Report. LW2-Pullaiah is his own brother. LW3 is his neice. LW4 is his brother-in-law. LW5 is resident of same village. LW2's land is situated on
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 6 of 19
Eastern side of his land, LW3's land is situated on Western side of his land,
LW4's and LW5's lands are situated on Northern side. LW6-Shankaraiah's land is situated on Eastern side of his land. At that time his age was 42 years. A1 did not have land surrounding to his land. He possessed Ac.3-00gts of land in
Sy.No.96/18/2 and the land was inherited by him. LW2 possessed land Ac.4- 00gts. He has 3 brothers. His another brother by name G. Kurumaiah possessed Ac.5-00gts of land and another brother by name Gatllaiah @ Chinna
Kurumurthy possessed Ac.4-00gts of land. He admitted that the land in Sy. No.
96 was Goverment land. Four of them i.e, himself and his brother possessed patta of the above said land. He admitted that grand father of A1 possess of
Ac.2-00gts of land in Sy.No.96. He admitted that SC, ST case got registered against him and 7 others. He admitted that on the same date of the incident when A1 was in his land himself, LW2 went to his land and pushed A1 aside. At the time of incident LW2 was not present. He denied the suggestion that LW3 and LW4 were also not present. He admitted that he filed Civil Suit against A1 in this court and same was pending. He denied the suggestion that A6 was present at the scene of offence on the day of incident she was in her in-laws house at Gumadam. A2 is father-in-law of A1; A3 is brother of A1; A4 and A5 are brother-in-laws’ of A1, and A6 is sister of A1. He denied the suggestion that at the time of incident A2 to A6 were not there at scene of offence and A2 to
A6 were relatives of A1 including there name in Ex.P1. He denied the suggestion thatas SC, ST case was registered against him and 7 others only to counter blast the same he filed the present false case against A1 to A6. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A6 never beat nor abused him.
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 7 of 19 10.2.PW2 in his chief examination stated that PW1 was his own brother.
He knew LW3 to LWS namely Ramakrishna, Ushan @ Hussain and Krishnaiah are my relaties. 4 years ago one day PW1 informed him that A1 to A6 trespassed into his land in Sy. No.96 an extent of Ac.3-00gts and damaged paddy snaps. On such information he went to the land of PW1 and observed that the paddy snaps were damaged. Police examined him and recorded my statement.
In his cross examination he admitted that he did not witness who damaged the paddy crop of PW1. He admitted that the land in Sy. No.96 was
Government land and land was allotted to Manchalakatta village people. He admitted that he did not know the names of other persons who gave information to him about the incident. He admitted that a Civil case was pending between him, PW1 and A1. He admitted that Government assigned to land to father of A1 in same Sy.No. He admitted that SC, ST case got registered against him and 7 others and same was pending. He possessed Ac.4-00gts of land in Sy.No.96/18/2 and the land was inherited by him. PW1 possessed land
Ac.3-00gts. He had 3 brothers. His another brother by name G. Kurumaiah possessed Ac.5-00gts of land and another brother by name Gatllaiah @ Chinna
Kurumurthy possessed Ac.4-00gts of land. He denied the suggestion that as
SC, ST case was registered against him and 7 others only to counter blast the same he filed the present false case against Al to A6. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A6 never beat, abused PW1 nor damaged the paddy crop. Police came to scene of offence and took Photographs of damaged paddy crop.
10.3.PW3 in his chief examination stated that he knew PW1 and PW2, LW4
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 8 of 19 and LW5 namely J. Ushan and Krishnaiah, he knew A1 to A6 as they were residing in same village. His agriculture land is situated adjacent to the agriculture land of PW1 at Manchalakata and in the year 2021 one day he heard that A1 and others damaged the paddy crop of PW1. Except that he did not know anything about this case. Police never examined and recorded his statement. At this stage, Ld. A.P.P. sought permission to declare the witness as hostile since the witness resiled from his earlier statements under section 161,
СгРС and was permitted so.
In his cross examination by the Learned A.P.P he denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex. P2/ Sec. 161 Crpc Statement.
He denied the suggestion that as A1 to A6 were of his village to help them he was deposing false.
10.4.PW4 in his chief examination stated that he knew PW1 to PW3 and
LW4/ J. Ushan. He knew A1 to A6 as they were residing in same village. Nearly 3 years ago, one day he went to agriculture land of PW1 which is situated in
Manchalakatta for water and at that time he noticed PW1 planted paddy crop and A1 to A6 damaged the paddy crop of PW1 with hands and legs and he witnessed the incident. Thereafter I went away from there after taking water.
Police examined and recorded my statement.
In the cross examination he stated that accused persons belong to SC community, PW1 and PW2 belong to BC community. On the day of incident, A6 was present at scene of offence. He/PW4 studied upto 10th class. At the time of incident PW2 and PW3 were along with PW1. He admitted that himself, accused persons, PW1, PW2 and two other brother were having agricultural land in Sy.
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 9 of 19
No.96. He admitted that SC/ST case was registered against PW1 and PW2 and 6 others by accused persons and same was pending in the Hon'ble SC/ST
Court, Mahabubnagar. He denied the suggestion that PW1 and PW2 and their two other brothers trespassed into the land of accused persons and damaged paddy crop and also beat them as such they lodged SC/ST case against PW1,
PW2 and 6 others. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of PW1, he was deposing false as PW1, PW2 and 2 other brothers resided in same village and A1 was not staying in the said village. He denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident.
10.5.PW5 stated in his chief examination that he knew PW1 to PW4. He knew the accused. They belonged to his village. He did not know anything about the case. At this stage, Ld. A.P.P. sought permission to declare the witness as hostile since the witness resiled from his earlier statements under section 161 Сг.Р.С. and was permitted so.
In his cross examination by the Learned A.P.P he denied the suggestion that on 13.01.2021 at 11:00 hours, galata took place between accused and complainant and he witnessed the same. Ex.P3 is his Sec.161
Cr.P.C. Statement. He denied the suggestion that to help the accused persons, he was deposing false.
10.6.PW6/I.O., stated in his chief examination that presently he is working as S.I of Police P.S, Addakal. Previously he worked as S.I of Police, at Police
Station, Pentlavelly from the year 16-10-2019 to 27-06-2021. On 13.01.2021 at about 11:00 hours, he received a complaint from PW1. Basing on the
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 10 of 19 complaint/Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.04/2021 for the offence
U/Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P4 is the FIR. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the PW1 U/Sec.161(3)
Cr.P.C at police station. Later, he visited the scene offence situated in the agricultural land in Sy.No.96/16/A in the limits of Manchalakatta village and secured the presence of two panchas i.e., LW6 and LW7 and prepared CDF cum scene of offence panchanama in their presence. Ex.P5 is CDF-cum-scene of offence panchanama. Later, he recorded the statements of eye witnesses i.e.,
PW4 and PW5 U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. On 15-02-2021, he issed 41(A)(1) Cr.P.C. to the accused and later on 17.02.2021 he served notice U/Sec.41(A)(3) Cr.P.C. to the accused. Later, he handed over the file to LW9 and he/LW9 filed charge sheet against the accused after completion of re-investigation.
In his cross examination PW6/ I.O admitted that he went to the scene of offence in the month of January. The scene of offence was wet land with paddy crop. He did not remember at what time he engaged panch witnesses for CDF-cum-Scene of offence panchanama. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offence and did not conduct scene of offence panchanama, and that for statistical purposes and to harass the accused, he had filed a false case.
10.7.The evidence of the PW1 states that while he was in his Paddy fields (3 Acres), A1 to A6 trespassed into his fields 4 years ago and damaged his transplantation of paddy crops. After 2 days of the incident he went to the police station and lodged a report/Ex.P1 about the offences committed by A1 to
A6. In Ex.P1 he also explained the delay of lodging his report with the
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 11 of 19
police stating that initially he wanted to settle this matter with the
accused before the village elders but that could not happen.
In the cross examination he stated that his land of 3 acres is a Patta land and it was inherited from his ancestors. In his statement given to the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C, 1973, he also confirmed the same fact that they have been cultivating this land from the time of their ancestors. In their defence the accused stated that they filed an S.C, S.T case against PW1 and 7 others and they also alleged that on the same date of the incident A1 was attacked by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5. But they have not lodged any F.I.R against those PWs. The accused have not filed case papers relating to the S.C,
S.T case to substantiate their allegations against PW1 to PW3 and PW5 . The presence of A6 at the scene of offence was denied by PW1 and PW1 further stated that she/A6 was in her in-laws’ house at Gumadam. Another point of defence raised by the accused is that A2 to A6 were not present at the scene of offence but PW1 denied this suggestion. From this evidence of PW1 it is established that the accused A1 to A5 were present at the scene of offence and they committed the offences alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 also corroborates his statement recorded by the police under section 161
Cr.P.C, 1973, his report/Ex.P1 and F.I.R/Ex.P4 except the presence of A6 at the scene of offence.
LW5/PW4 is the eye-witness to the incident and his evidence corroborates with Ex.P1/report, Ex.P4/FIR and also with his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, 1973, except some minor discrepancies, which are bound to occur since the evidence is given after a lapse of more than 4 years.
He stated in his cross-examination that A6 was present at the scene of offence,
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 12 of 19 whereas PW1 denied her presence at the scene of offence. It is a vital contradiction and the presence of A6 offence at the scene is not proved.
10.8.LW2/PW2 is the circumstantial witness, who in his evidence stated that he reached the scene of offence on receiving the information about the commission of the alleged offences by the accused A1 to A6 and found the damaged paddy transplantation in the fields of PW1. He corroborates the statement given by him to the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and also Ex.P1/Report, Ex.P4/FIR and also the evidence of PW1 and PW5, except some minor discrepancies.
PW3 is the circumstantial witness who turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that Police never examined him and recorded his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C, 1973/Ex.P2. Therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon.
PW5 is the eye witness to the case but he turned hostile to the prosecution and resiled from his earlier statement given to the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C, 1973/Ex.P3. Therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon.
PW6 is the I.O in this case and has conducted the entire investigation in this case and LW9 only filed the charge sheet. In his evidence the PW6 (I.O) has stated that he registered the case under crime no. 04/2021 on the basis of
Ex.P1 and he corroborates Ex.P1/report and Ex.P4/FIR. He also stated that he visited the scene of offence which is situated in Sy. No. 96/16/A i.e. the agricultural land of PW1 and prepared Ex.P5/CDF cum scene of offence
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 13 of 19 panchanama in presence of panch witnesses LW6 and LW7. Though these panch witnesses were given up by the prosecution, Ex.P5/CDF cum scene of offence panchanamau is corroborated by the evidence of PW2, who stated in his cross examination that police came to the scene of offence and took photographs of damaged paddy crops. Therefore, the evidence of I.O i.e. PW6 corroborates with Ex.P1, Ex.P4 and also Ex.P5 along with the evidence of PW1,
PW2 and PW4.
10.9.The main defence of the accused is that this case was filed against the accused persons as a counter blast to the SC, ST case filed by the accused.
That the delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR is not explained. To prove the ownership of the trespassed land PW1 neither filed any documents nor the police obtained such documents from the revenue authorities. PW1 did not mention the boundaries of his land and also he did not specify to which extent of his entire 3 acres of land, Paddy crop/transplantation was being grown.
10.10.From the evidence of the prosecution it is evident that in Ex.P1 the delay in lodging the FIR was explained. With regard to the allegation that since the accused lodged the SC, ST case against PW1 and others and that this case was filed as a counter blast by PW1 it is observed that the accused did not file any case papers nor even mentioned the case number. He simply relied on the admission of PW1, which is not correct in view of section 31 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
With regard to the point that PW1 did not prove the ownership of the trespassed land by documentary evidence, PW1 stated in Ex.P1 and also in the
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 14 of 19 statement given by him to the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C, 1973 that it was his ancestral land and that he has also got a Patta and it has been under his cultivation. The evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW6 corroborates this fact. It is the established law that under section 447 (Criminal Trespass) possession is the only essential element which has to be proved and it does not require any title document. On this point the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab (1957) 4 SCC 518 held that mere non- production of title or revenue documents is not sufficient to discard otherwise reliable evidence regarding possession in cases of criminal trespass.
10.11.The next point raised by the defence is that the I.O did not visit the scene of offence nor collect any title documents with respect to the trespassed land. The evidence of PW2 confirms the fact that PW6 visited the scene of offence. With regard to the extent of damage to the paddy transplantation and its value the Ex.P1 is very explicit that in the entire land the paddy transplantation was damaged by the accused and its value was Rs. 20,000/-, which may be a conservative estimate and its value may be higher in view of the soaring prices as suggested by the defence counsel.
10.12.Another point of defence raised is that the prosecution did not file the photographs showing the damage to the paddy transplantation. In the case records the photos are not available. However, it is very unsafe to rely on photographs to come to any conclusion with regard to the extent of the damage to the paddy transplantation. The ocular evidence is sufficient to believe the prosecution’s case.
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 15 of 19 10.13.With regard to the boundaries of the trespassed land, PW1 has clearly stated in his cross examination the names of the neighboring land owners as boundaries which is common way of describing the boundaries in the villages.
Therefore, the defence of the accused is not sustainable and the court cannot place any reliance on it. Hence, this court rejects the pleas of the defence.
10.14.The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6 have clearly proved that the accused nos. 1 to 5 trespassed into the agricultural land under possession of PW1 and damaged his paddy transplantation (estimated to be of worth Rs.
20,000/- as per Ex.P1) thereby all the accused excluding accused no.6 committed the offences under section 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC,1860.
11.ON POINT NO. (ii) :Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against Accused Nos.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt?
In view of the above reasons cited in point no. (i) and the above evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6, this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the Accused nos. 1 to 5 under section 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt.
But the prosecution failed to prove its case against accused
no. 6 under section 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 beyond reasonable
doubt in view of the contradictions observed in the evidence of PW1,
PW2 and PW4 regarding her presence at the scene of offence.
12.ON POINT NO. (iii): And to what result?
In the result, in view of the above discussion of the evidence,
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 16 of 19 observations and findings made thereon, the prosecution has proved the charge of offences punishable under section 447, section 427 r/w section 34
IPC, 1860, beyond all reasonable doubts against accused no.1/ Borelli
Nagarjuna S/o Ramudu Age: 30 years; accused no.2/Suligiri Chinna Ramudu S/o
Naganna Age: 50 years; accused no.3/ Borelli Nagaraju S/o Ramudu Age: 26 years; accused no.4/ Suligiri Nagaraju S/o Pedda Ramudu, Age: 26 years; and accused no.5/ Suligiri Pedda Kurumaiah S/o Guruswamy, Age: 30 years.
Therefore, the accused nos. 1 to 5 are found guilty under section 447, section 427 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860 and accordingly, they are liable for conviction under section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C, 1973.
The accused no.6/ Nagalaxmi W/o Ramudu, Age: 32 years is
not found guilty of of offences punishable under section 447, section
427 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860 and is acquitted under section 255(1) of
Cr.P.C, 1973 .
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Kollapur.
QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
1.The accused nos. 1 to 5 were heard on the point of sentence to be awarded to them. They pleaded that they are poor, that each one of them have wife and children along with old age parents and they are the sole bread winners of their families and prayed the court to take a lenient view.
2.Looking into the nature of offences, the pleas of the accused nos. 1 to
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 17 of 19 5 and the substantial damage caused to the paddy plantation of the de-facto complainant/PW1 this court is inclined to take a lenient view against A1 to A5 in this case.
3.The offences proved against A1 to A5 are punishable under section 447, 427 r/w section 34 of IPC, 1860. Though the offences punishable under
Sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 IPC are offences in respect of which the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can legally be considered, however this Court is not inclined to extend such benefit to the accused since the evidence on record discloses that all the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the agricultural land of the de- facto complainant and caused damage to the newly transplanted paddy crop of the de-facto complainant/PW1 worth about Rs.20,000/-. The act was deliberate, concerted and affected the livelihood of the agriculturist/PW1. Considering the manner of commission of the offence, the impact on the victim, the age of the offenders and the need for deterrence in offences relating to agricultural property, this Court holds that the accused are not entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
4.The accused no.1/ Borelli Nagarjuna S/o Ramudu Age: 30 years; accused no.2/ Suligiri Chinna Ramudu S/o Naganna Age: 50 years; accused no.3/ Borelli Nagaraju S/o Ramudu Age: 26 years; accused no.4/ Suligiri
Nagaraju S/o Pedda Ramudu, Age: 26 years; and accused no.5/ Suligiri Pedda
Kurumaiah S/o Guruswamy, Age: 30 years are convicted under sections 447, section 427 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860. They are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months each under section 447 of I.P.C, 1860. They should
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 18 of 19 also undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months each under section 427 r/w section 34 I.P.C, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The total fine amount is Rs.25,000/- out of which Rs.23,000/- shall be paid to PW1 as victim compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and the remaining fine amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the State Exchequer. In default of payment of fine the Accused nos. 1 to 5 should undergo simple imprisonment of another 2 months each.
5.Having regard to the deliberate trespass followed by intentional damage to Paddy crop/transplantation causing loss to the victim/PW1, this
Court finds it appropriate to direct that all the above sentences shall run against the accused nos.1 to 5 concurrently to meet the ends of justice and deterrence.
6.The period spent by the accused nos. 1 to 5 in police custody and judicial custody shall be set off from the substantive sentence awarded under section 447, section 427 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860 under section 428 of Cr.P.C, 1973. The accused A1 to A5 shall be sent to Jail along with a Jail Warrant.
7.The sentence in default of payment of fine shall be in addition to the substantive sentence awarded for the offenceundersection 447, section 427 r/w section 34 IPC, 1860.
8.The bail bonds of the accused persons and the sureties stand cancelled after the expiry of period of appeal.
9.The accused nos.1 to 5 have been informed of their right to prefer an
C.C. No. 321 of 2021Page 19 of 19 appeal against the conviction and sentence of this court.
Typed by me in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 13th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW.1 : Gudemoni Vishnumurthy. - NONE - PW.2 : Gudemoni Pullaiah. PW.3 : G. Ramakrishna. PW.4 : G. Krishnaiah. PW.5 : J. Hussain. PW.6 : M. Srinivas, SI of Police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P1 : Report. - NIL - Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P4 : F.I.R. Ex.P5 : CDF-cum-Scene of offence panchanama.
M.O.’S MARKED
- NIL -
Sd/-
II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.