IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET.
Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
Wednesday, this the 2nd day of December, 2020.
C.C.No. 522 of 2015
State: Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police, Edlapadu Police Station. … Complainant
Vs
Kavuri Muthaiah, S/o. Ankaiah, aged 35 years, N/o. Pinnelli Village, Machavaram Mandal, now at Lakkaraju Garlapadu village, Sattenapalli Mandal. Ex-VRO of Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal.
... Accused
This case is coming for final hearing on 27.11.2020 before me in the presence of Sri. A. Pavan Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chilakaluripet for the complainant and Sri G. Vinodh Kumar, Learned Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides through video conference (Bluejeans Application), this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Edlapadu Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) in Cr.No.138/2015 of his Police Station.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
a) That the L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma is a resident of ¾
Ramireddy thota, Guntur Town and living by doing selling fish. She used to bring fish, dressing the fish and sell in the B.V.R chicken stall of L.W.4
Racharla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Veeraiah situated at Ankireddypalem bypass road. In this connection, while the L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma was attending work in the chicken stall, the accused who is working as a Village
AJCJ., CHPET2/18C.C No.522 of 2015
Revenue Officer in Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal approached her in the year 2014 in August month and informed that the Government is going to distribute 2.00 acres of land to poor women and he will arrange 2.00 acres of land to L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma if she gave Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the accused and he told deceitful words. On that, the L.W.1
Adagadapa Chandramma got faith of accused's words gave Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupess one lakh only) to the accused in the presence of L.W.2 Samudrala
Koteswara Rao who is working as Ankireddypalem plots broker at
Thimmapuram to Nadendla cross road. The L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma, again after 10 days gave RS.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the accused in the presence of L.W.3 Bandla Sambaiah. After one week, the accused asked to give remaining amount, then, L.W.1 Adagadapa
Chandramma gave Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the accused in the presence of L.W.4 Racharla Srinivasa Rao who is chicken shop owner.
Later the accused gave three (3) cash receipts and promised to provide land.
Then, L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma caused enquires and about the accused and came to now that the accused did not doing work in Edlapadu
Mandal and his whereabouts not known. Then, the L.W.1 Adagadapa
Chandramma came to conclusion that the accused told deceitful words to her and took cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from her and thereby he cheated. Hence, L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma reported the matter in
Edlapadu Police Station to take necessary action against the accused.
b) Upon receipt of report from L.W.1 Adagadapa Chandramma, on 05.11.2015 at 8.30 pm., L.W.7 M. Uma Maheswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Edlapadu Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.138/2015 under
Section 420 of IPC and submitted the First Information Report to the concerned and took up the investigation. During course of investigation, he
AJCJ., CHPET3/18C.C No.522 of 2015 examined the witnesses cited in the memo of evidence and recorded their detailed statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During the course of further investigation, he arrested the accused on 09.11.2015 at 1.00 pm., at Manorama Tea Stall, NRT centre, Chilakaluripet town under a cover of mediatornama duly attested by mediators and the accused admitted the guilty of offence and then he was brought to the Police Station and sent for remand. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.
3.After perusing the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C” for brevity) and connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C against the accused and issued summons to him.
4.On appearance of the accused before this Court, he was supplied with copies of case documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of allegations made against him in the charge sheet in Telugu for which, he denied his involvement in the commission of offence. As there is a ground to presume that the accused had committed the offence, a charge under Section 420 of I.P.C is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. PW.1 is the informant/victim; P.Ws.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses for the amount given to the accused by P.W.1; P.W.5 is the arrest mediator and P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W.1 given to Police dt:05.11.2015; Ex.P2 is the Pattadar pass book bearing
AJCJ., CHPET4/18C.C No.522 of 2015
No.242780 containing the name of witness; Ex.P3 is the Title deed with same number with the name of the witness; Ex.P4 is the Adangal copy containing hand writing dt:01.11.2014 (3 in number) obtained from Mee Seva; Ex.P5 is the Tax receipt bearing No.1210600 with the signature of the accused; Ex.P6 is the arrest cum confessional mahazarnama; Ex.P7 is the First Information
Report in Cr.No.138/2015 of Edlapadu Police Station and Ex.P8 is the rough sketch. On behalf of the accused, portion of Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 is marked as Ex.D1.
6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in
Telugu. The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and the Learned Counsel for accused through Video Conference. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.
8.Now the points for determination are:
“1) Whether the accused dishonestly and fraudulently induced P.W.1 that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to P.W.1 from the Government if she gave Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to him and thereby the P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to accused and thereby, the accused failed to arrange the said land and thereby, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence charged under Section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”
9.The gravamen of the allegations against the accused are that he approached P.W.1 in the Month of August 2014, at the chicken stall of P.W.3 situated at Ankireddypalem, Bypass, Guntur and he fraudulently and
AJCJ., CHPET5/18C.C No.522 of 2015 dishonestly stated to P.W.1 that he was working as a Village Revenue Officer of Thimmapuram Village of Edlapadu Mandal and the Government is going to distribute 2.00 Acres of the land to poor women and if she paid an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- to him, he would arrange land on the name of P.W.1 and so saying, he took an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance in the presence of
P.W.4 at Thimmapuram to Nadendla cross road and after 10 days, again the accused demanded P.W.1 to give Rs.50,000/- and therefore, the P.W.1 gave
Rs.50,000/- to accused in the presence of P.W.2. The further allegation against the accused is that he demanded again the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- after one week stating that he mutated the name of the P.W.1 in records and therefore, the P.W.1 gave the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused in the presence of P.W.3. Subsequently, the P.W.1 waited that she would get the land but she could not get the same till lodging the Ex.P1 report with the
Police. Then, the P.W.1 made enquiry about the accused and came to know that the accused was not working at Edlapadu Mandal and his whereabouts are not known. Therefore, the P.W.1 went into Edlapadu Police Station, there she lodged Ex.P1 report with the Police against the accused as he took away amount of RS.2,00,000/- from her by inducing her to pay the same to him with an ulterior motive and to take action against him. On the other hand, the case of the accused is total denial. Hence the burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
10.To bring home the guilt of accused for the offence charged against him, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P8.
11.POINT No.1:
The specific case of the prosecution is that the accused being the
Village Revenue Officer of Thimmapuram Village of Edlapadu Mandal
AJCJ., CHPET6/18C.C No.522 of 2015 approached P.W.1 in the month of August 2014, induced her and made her to believe that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to her as the Government is going to distribute the same to poor women if she gave Rs.2,00,000/- to him and that therefore, the P.W.1 gave the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to him on different dates. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused had issued receipts for the amount received from the P.W.1 but the accused failed to arrange the said land to P.W.1 and the P.W.1 came to conclusion that the accused was not working at Edlapadu Mandal and further came to know that the accused cheated her with deceitful words with malafide intention by taking the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her on the pretext that he would arrange the land from Government.
12.To constitute an offence under Section 420 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention and thereby he induced the victim and thereby she delivered some property to the accused. At this juncture, it is very essential to extract the definition of cheating as defined U/sec. 415 of the I.P.C. and the same is read as under:
“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’.
Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section”.
13.A perusal of the definition of Section 415 of I.P.C., it would clear that under the 1st part of that Section, to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused should have deceived the complainant and fraudulently or
AJCJ., CHPET7/18C.C No.522 of 2015 dishonestly induced him to deliver any property to any person. Under the 2nd part of the said Section, it is necessary to show that by virtue of deceit practiced by the accused and the fraudulent representation made by him, the accused has induced the complainant to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived and which resulted in any harm.
14.A perusal of the evidence available on record keeping in mind the definition of cheating and the law laid down above, the P.W.1 has filed the
Ex.P1 report against the accused stating that the accused approached her in the month of August 2014, while she was present at the chicken stall of P.W.3, induced her and stated that the Government is going to distribute 2.00 acres of land each to poor women and if, she would pay the amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- to him, he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to P.W.1 and therefore, she paid Rs.1,00,000/- to accused as an advance in the presence of
P.W.4 and Rs.50,000/- in the presence of P.W.2 and Rs.50,000/- in the presence of P.W.3 on different dates. Subsequently, the P.W.1 waited for the land but she could not get the land and that therefore, she tried to make enquiry with the accused but she came to know that the accused was not working in Edlapadu Mandal and his whereabouts are not known. Therefore, the P.W.1 went into the Edlapadu Police Station, there she lodged Ex.P1 report with the Police with a request to take action against the accused as he cheated P.W.1.
15.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she stated in her evidence as that of her Ex.P1 report. The P.W.6 who got registered the Ex.P1 report under
Ex.P7 First Information Report has stated as that of P.W.1 and he corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of lodging the Ex.P1 report by the P.W.1.
Hence, the prosecution has proved the Ex.P1 report given by the P.W.1.
AJCJ., CHPET8/18C.C No.522 of 2015
16.As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she has stated in her evidence as to the manner in which the accused approached her, induced her to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to him as he promised her that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to her. The P.W.1 has further stated that the accused called her near to the shop of P.W.3 stating that he brought Ex.P2 Pattadar pass book and Ex.P4 Adangals for the land alloted in her name and he demanded the
additional amount of Rs.50,000/- and therefore, she went to the shop of P.W.3
there she paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the accused and received Ex.P2
Pattadar pass books and Ex.P4 Adangal copies contained her name as owner.
The P.W.1 has further stated that subsequently she enquired with Revenue
Officer’s about her land as contained in the Ex.P2 Pass book handed over by the accused and she came to know that there is no such land allotted to her and thereby she concluded that she was cheated by the accused.
17.The prosecution examined P.Ws.2 to 4 in whose presence the accused had received the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W.1 representing that he would arrange the land of 2.00 acres from Government by issuing receipts in favour of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2 is to that effect that about five years back, one day, the accused who is working as Village Revenue
Officer of their village asked him to accompany him and therefore, he went along with accused to Thimmapuram village. There, they noticed P.W.1 at
Nadendla cross roads at Thimmapuram village and the accused received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 stating that he would arrange some land on her name.
18.The evidence of P.W.3 is to that effect that the accused used to come to their chicken stall to purchase chicken in the year 2014. The P.W.1 used to supply fish and ramb intestine to them. The accused told P.W.3 that the Government is providing 2.00 acres of land to poor womens and the
AJCJ., CHPET9/18C.C No.522 of 2015
Government asked them to cause survey of the said land for which they have been surveying and selling the land secretly. Then, the P.W.3 informed the same to P.W.1 and she accepted to take the land. Then, he called the accused and P.W.1 to his chicken shop there, the accused told P.W.1 that if she gave
Rs.2,00,000/- to him he would provide 2.00 acres of land to her. Then, the
P.W.1 asked accused to show the land for which he had shown the land at
Thimmapuram village. Then, they gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused at the land itself. Again, they gave Rs.50,000/- to accused in the presence of P.W.2.
The accused had issued receipt for receiving of Rs.1,50,000/-. Then, the accused again came to the chicken shop of the P.W.3 and he stated that he completed all formalities and demanded the balance of Rs.50,000/-. Then the
P.W.1 gave the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused and he inturn handed over Pattadar pass book, Title deed, Cist receipt and documents on the name of P.W.1. Then, they made a phone call to accused with a view to measure the land but the accused did not respond to their phone call. Thereafter, they went to Village Revenue Office of Edlapadu village with the documents given by the accused and came to know that those documents are fake documents and the accused was already suspended from service. Then, the P.W.1 and
P.W.3 confirmed that the accused cheated P.W.1 and therefore, they went to
Edlapadu Police Station there they lodged a report with the Police.
19.The evidence of P.W.4 is to that effect that in the year 2014, one day, he went to Tahsildar’s office of Edlapadu Mandal and therefore, he got acquaintance with the accused. After ten days, the accused told P.W.4 that the Government is distributing the land to the widows and whether there are any widows known to him for which he replied that there are no such widows known to him and if they are available he would tell to accused. Then, the
P.W.4 informed the same to P.W.3 and he inturn informed the same to P.W.1
AJCJ., CHPET10/18C.C No.522 of 2015 who used to come to the shop of P.W.3 to sell fish for which the P.W.1 agreed for the same. Then, the P.W.4 intimated the same to accused. Then after two days, the accused came to Ankireddypalem, bypass and they called P.W.1 to that place, there discussions took place and they confirmed to give
Rs.2,00,000/- to accused to arrange 2.00 acres of land. Then the accused asked them to come the land situated at Thimmapuram village with cash.
Then, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 went to Thimmapuram village, there the accused had shown the proposed land to them and therefore, the P.W.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused and in evidence there of, he issued a receipt to P.W.1.
Subsequently, he came to know that the P.W.1 again gave an amount of
Rs.50,000/- to accused. He further stated that the accused received the remaining balance of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 and handed over Pattadar pass books and Title deeds in his presence.
20.The investigating officer who is examined as P.W.6 has stated that soon after registering Ex.P7 First Information Report, he visited the scene of offence on 06.11.2015 there he examined the scene and drafted Ex.P8 rough sketch of the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 examined and recorded their statements. The P.W.6 has further stated that on 09.11.2015, he received information about the presence of accused at NRT centre. Immediately, he secured mediators and left for NRT centre,
Chilakaluripet, there he arrested the accused and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed the offence and therefore, he prepared Ex.P6 arrest cum confession mahazarnama in the presence of mediators and then he forwarded the accused to judicial remand.
21.The P.W.5 in whose presence the P.W.6 arrested the accused has stated in his evidence as that of P.W.6. The P.W.5 has further stated that the
P.W.6 arrested the accused in their presence and on interrogation, the
AJCJ., CHPET11/18C.C No.522 of 2015 accused voluntarily admitted that he took amount from P.W.1 promising that he would arrange the land to her. He further stated that the Sub-Inspector of
Police, recorded the statement given by the accused in their presence under
Ex.P6 arrest cum confessional mahazarnama.
22.A careful perusal of the above evidence, it would clear that the accused being the Village Revenue Officer of Thimmapuram village of
Edlapadu Mandal approached P.W.1 in the month of August 2014, induced her with deceitful words that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to her if she gave Rs.2,00,000/- to him as the Government is going to distribute the same to poor women. It appears from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that the P.W.1 paid the agreed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to accused on different dates and the accused had passed receipts in favour of P.W.1 for the amount received by him from P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of
P.Ws.2 to 4 in whose presence the accused induced P.W.1 with deceitful words stating that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to P.W.1 if she gave
Rs.2,00,000/- to him from the Government and in whose presence he received
Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W.1 on different dates. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is inspiring confidence of this Court and this Court do not see any reason to disbelieve their oral evidence. Though the Learned Counsel for the accused has cross examined P.Ws.1 to 4 at length but noting could be elicited from their evidence to discard their evidence on material facts. It appears from the cross examination of the P.Ws.1 to 4 that the Learned defence counsel has elicited some admissions such as they have not known the exact time and date when the accused received the amount from P.W.1. But, this Court is of view that the admissions elicited by the Learned Defence Counsel are not going to the roots of the case of prosecution.
23. It is the case of prosecution that the accused issued Exs.P2 to P6
AJCJ., CHPET12/18C.C No.522 of 2015 documents in the name of P.W.1 stating that she got the land from the
Government. The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that as she could not get the land as stated by accused, she has made enquiry with the Revenue Officer’s and she came to know that the Exs.P2 to P6 documents given by the accused are fake documents. As can be seen from Ex.P2 Pattadar Pass book and Ex.P3
Title deed, it is mentioned the name of P.W.1 as owner of the land in survey
No.71 of an extent of 68.00 cents and in survey No.81/C/0 of an extent of 1.54 cents and in Survey No.89/B of an extent of 2.46 cents. A keen perusal of the said Ex.P2 Pattadar pass book and Ex.P3 Title deed stands in the name of
P.W.1, it appears that the name of the P.W.1 was written with hand writing in the said documents by deleting the name of others with whitener. As seen from Ex.P4 Adangals, it appears that the accused had issued the same in the name of P.W.1 by writing her name with hand writing in the column of
Pattadar with his signature and also issued Ex.P5 Tax receipt in the name of
P.W.1 as if she was the owner of the said land. Hence, it seems that the accused had prepared the above documents so as to cheat the P.W.1 to impress her that he would have arranged the land to her as promised.
24.A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, it would clear that the
P.W.6 got arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.5 and he prepared Ex.P6 arrest cum confessional mahazarnama. A perusal of Ex.P6 confessional mahazarnama, the accused has confessed that he was working as a Village
Revenue Officer of Thimmapuram village of Edlpadu Mandal since 2013. The
Learned Counsel for the accused did not dispute that the accused was not working as a Village Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time. Therefore, there is ample evidence that the accused was working as a Village Revenue
Officer of Thimmapuram village in the year 2014.
25.The Learned Counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that
AJCJ., CHPET13/18C.C No.522 of 2015 there is delay of filing Exs.P2 to P6 documents and that therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. As seen from the records, it appears that the Exs.P2 to P6 documents are not filed by the investigating officer along with the charge sheet. But the prosecution choose to file the same documents by way of filing a petition before the Court under Section 242 (3) of Cr.P.C at the time of the trial by giving notice to the Learned Counsel for the accused stating that the same are held up with P.W.1 and she could not handed over the same to investigating officer since, the same were misplaced in her house. Since, the respondent/accused failed to file his counter inspite of availing sufficient time and imposing costs, treated counter as nil and this
Court allowed the above petition. The said order became final and the accused did not dispute the said order. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that as per Section 173 (5) of Cr.P.C., it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to forward all the documents to Magistrate gathered during investigation upon which the prosecution intends to rely, but there is omission, it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot be produced subsequently. Since, the prosecution has filed the above Exs.P2 to
P6 documents during trial it cannot be correct on the part of the accused that the same cannot be looked into. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the accused has cross examined the P.Ws.1 to 4 touching the authenticity of said documents. The P.Ws.1 to 4 have categorically denied in their cross examination that the accused did not hand over the said Exs.P2 to P6 documents to P.W.1. Hence, the argument of the Learned Defence counsel that the Exs.P2 to P6 documents cannot be taken into consideration as the same were filed belatedly not sustainable.
26.The Learned Counsel has further contended that the prosecution did not file the receipt said to have been issued by the accused to P.W.1 for
AJCJ., CHPET14/18C.C No.522 of 2015 the alleged amount received by him and the investigating officer did not visit the Tahsildar office to know whether the accused was working as Village
Revenue Officer or not and he issued Exs.P2 to P6 and in the absence of such evidence, the accused cannot be punished. A perusal of the evidence on record in the light of the above argument, the P.Ws.2 to 4 have categorically stated in their evidence that the accused issued receipt to P.W.1 for the amount received by him from her and the investigating officer is also stated in his evidence that he received the said receipts from P.W.1. Though the said receipts have been filed the investigating officer along with the charge sheet and available in case records in the Court, but the prosecution failed to mark the same for the reasons best known to them. However, since there is direct evidence from P.Ws.1 to 4 as to receiving of the amount of RS.2,00,000/- from
P.W.1 by the accused, this Court is of view that the laches on the part of the prosecution in marking the said receipts cannot ruin the prosecution case. As far as non visiting the Tahsildar’s office, the investigating officer P.W.6 has categorically stated in his cross examination since the accused is personally known to him as working as a Village Revenue Officer, he could not visit the
Tahsildar’s office. In addition to that it is not the case of accused that he was not working as a Village Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time. Hence, the version of the Learned Counsel for the accused that the receipts not placed before the Court by the prosecution and not visited the investigating officer to Tahsildar’s office is a feeble argument.
27.The Learned Counsel for the accused has contended that the
P.W.1 foisted a false case against the accused at the instance of P.W.3 as he is having dispute with the accused as they happened to be same villagers. A perusal of the evidence on record, the Learned Counsel for the accused cross examined P.W.3 and wherein he categorically denied in his evidence that he is
AJCJ., CHPET15/18C.C No.522 of 2015 a resident of Lakkaraju Garlapadu of Sattenapalli where the accused was residing. There is no evidence on record except putting suggestion to P.W.3 that he was the resident of Lakkaraju Garlapadu of Sattenapalli Mandal. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the accused and the P.W.3 are the same villagers and a dispute is in existence between them. Even the
Learned Defence Counsel has not pointed out either in the cross examination or in the arguments the nature of the dispute between the P.W.3 and accused.
Hence, the version of the Learned Defence Counsel that the P.W.1 foisted a false case against the accused at the instance of P.W.1 is a feeble argument.
28.A perusal of the over all evidence, it appears that the accused with guilty intention approached the P.W.1 made her to believe that he was going to arrange the land to her from Government, received an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- from her on the different dates. The prosecution has established with the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 in whose presence the accused received the amount that he promised that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land to P.W.1 if she gave Rs.2,00,000/- to him. Subsequently, the accused had made to believe P.W.1 that he issued Exs.P2 to P6 documents in favour of the P.W.1 stating that the P.W.1 got the land from Government. But the Exs.P2 to P6 documents given by the accused were verified by the Revenue Officials and they declared them as fake documents. Therefore, it seems that the accused has induced the P.W.1 and in view of the same, she paid an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- to accused on different dates. Therefore, this Court is of view that the act of the accused attracts the ingredients of cheating and therefore, he committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The Point No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
29.POINT No.2:
In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the
AJCJ., CHPET16/18C.C No.522 of 2015 prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment.
30.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence charged under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.
Party dictated and partly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me through Video Conference from Presiding Officer’s Chamber, on this the 2nd day of December, 2020.
Sd/- V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
31.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and he submitted that the accused has cheated the poor women by taking an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from her on the pretext that he would arrange 2.00 acres of land from the Government and impose appropriate sentence commensurate to the offence committed by the accused.
32.Heard the accused on quantum of sentence. The accused has submitted that he did not commit any offence. He further submitted that he is having two unmarried girls and he has to perform their marriages and having old aged mother and wife and all are depending upon him and requested to take lenient view in imposing the sentence. This is not a fit case to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. The accused is apprised of his right to appeal against the Judgment of this Court. On enquiry, the accused has submitted that he is having capacity to prefer an appeal. Considering the plea of the accused, nature of offence and circumstances of the case, this Court is of view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.
33.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence charged under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C of the said offence and he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and also sentenced to pay fine of
AJCJ., CHPET17/18C.C No.522 of 2015
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. The remand period of accused from 10.11.2015 to 21.11.2015 and 06.02.2020 to 14.02.2020 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C from the sentence imposed against the accused.
Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me through video conference from Presiding Officer’s chamber
on this the 2nd day of December, 2020.
Sd/- V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.1: Adagadapa Chandramma Nil P.W.2: Bandla Sambaiah P.W.3: Racharla Srinivasa Rao P.W.4: Samudrala Koteswara Rao P.W.5: Popuri Raghavaiah P.W.6: M. Uma Maheswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Edlapadu Police Station.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1 given to Police dt:05.11.2015. Ex.P2 : Pattadar pass book bearing No.242780 containing the name of witness. Ex.P3 : Title deed with same number with the name of the witness. Ex.P4 : Adangal copy containing hand writing dt:01.11.2014 (3 in number) obtained from Mee Seva. Ex.P5 : Tax receipt bearing No.1210600 with the signature of the accused. Ex.P6 : Arrest cum confessional mahazarnam. Ex.P7 : First Information Report in Cr.No.138/2015 of Edlapadu Police Station. Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch. FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1: Portion of Section 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-NIL-
Sd/- V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. // True Copy //
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
AJCJ., CHPET18/18C.C No.522 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.
Calendar in C.C.No: 522 of 2015
Date of occurrence::Prior to 05.11.2015 Date of complaint::05.11.2015 Date of taken on file::18.12.2015 Date of commencement of trial::22.04.2019 Date of closure of trial::05.03.2020 Date of sentence or order::02.12.2020 Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Edlapadu Police Station. (Cr.No.138/2015 of Edlapadu P.S.)
Name of the accused Father's / Husband's name Age
Kavuri MuthaiahAnkaiah35years Village Mandal Religion Calling Lakkaraju GarlapaduSattenpalli -- Nature of offence :Under Section 420 of IPC Finding of the Court :Accused is found guilty. Explanation for delay :This case is taken on file on 18.12.2015. On 16.02.2016, copies were furnished to the accused. On 29.11.2016, accused had been examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and he pleaded not guilty. Hence, on 22.04.2019, P.W.1 was examined, Exs.P1 to P6 are marked. On 18.02.2020, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined. On 26.02.2020, P.W.3 cross examined, Ex.D1 is marked. On 04.03.2020, P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined, Ex.P6 is marked. On 05.03.2020, P.W.6 was examined, Exs.P7 and P8 are marked. On the same day prosecution evidence is closed. On 10.03.2020 the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Defence evidence was closed on the same day as reported no defence evidence. On 17.03.12020 heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argument. Since then, this case adjourned to several days till 27.11.2020 in view of lock down due to Covid-19. On 27.11.2020 heard Deference Counsel argument through Video conference (BLUEJEANS APPLICATION). On 02.12.2020 Judgment
Pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay.
Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence charged under Section 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C of the said offence and he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. The remand period of accused from 10.11.2015 to 21.11.2015 and 06.02.2020 to 14.02.2020 shall be set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C from the sentence imposed against the accused.
* Fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is paid by the accused.
Sd/- V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.
Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Guntur. Dis.No.____________, Dt:______________ // True Copy //
Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.