THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.524 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant - complainant had filed a private complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District, under Sections 447, 323, 379 and 506 (2) IPC in C.C. No.121 of 2001 against A-1 to A-16. But, the learned trial Court has taken the complaint on file only against A-1 to A-3 as there was no sufficient material against A-4 to A-16. The learned trial Court, on A-1, A-2 and A-3 denying the charges that were framed under Sections 379 and 323 IPC against them, they were tried for the said offences and after conclusion of the trial, they were found not guilty of the said offences and accordingly they were acquitted by the judgment of the learned trial Court, dated 08-08-2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the trial Court, the appellant - complainant preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds: i) that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and other material available on record in proper perspective; ii) that the trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of PWs.1 to 3; iii) that the trial Court ought to have seen that PW-2, who was examined as an eye-witness to the incident, was an independent witness. iv) that though the appellant had proved her case, the trial Court erroneously acquitted A-1 to A-3; and v) that the trial Court has erred in considering PWs.2 and 3 as interested witnesses. 2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereinafter referred to as complainant and A-1 to A-3 respectively. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The complainant was having Ac.0-22 cents of land in R.S. Nos.548/5-A and 548/6 in Kannayagudem of Mogalaturu Mandal of West Godavari district, wherein she was raising sarava crop and the same was ripe for harvesting. On 21-11-2000, all the accused have trespassed into her field, got cut the crop and carried away the same. When the complainant questioned the accused about the same, they abused and assaulted her, pushed her down, kicked her and threatened her with dire consequences. On her filing the private complaint before the trial Court, charges were framed against A-1 to A- 3 while dismissing the case against A-4 to A-16 as has already been stated hereinabove. 4. To prove her case, the complainant has got examined herself as PW.1 besides examining eye-witnesses to the incident as PWs.2 and 3 on her behalf, whereas no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court, taking the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and other material available on record into consideration, found A-1 to A-3 not guilty for the offences under Sections 379 and 323 IPC and accordingly they were acquitted therefor. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has raised self- same grounds as he has raised in the grounds of appeal and in addition there to he submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 proved the case that all the accused together trespassed into the field of the complainant and cut and carried away the crop therefrom and when they were questioned by the complainant, she was abused and assaulted by them. Therefore, he contends that the trial Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that A-1 to A-3 were not guilty of the charges under Sections 379 and 323 IPC. He further submits that PW.2 was only working under PW.1 and as such, the trial Court was wrong in considering him to be an interested witness, so also PW-3, who was related to PW.1. Therefore, he contends that the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court may be set aside by allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - A-1 to A-3 submits that it is an admitted fact that the father of complainant had adopted A-1, and therefore, A-1 was the adopted son of the father of complainant for all purposes, as by then, the father of the complainant was not blessed with any issues. The complainant was born much after A-1’s adoption. It is also an admitted fact that there were land disputes between both the parties. That in a partition suit, some property was handed over to A-1 by the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District, in O.S. No.295 of 2004. It is further contended that the husband of the complainant is behind the dispute, in fact, he has instigated his wife in filing false case against A-1 to A-3. According to him, the entire village raises paddy crop and many workers in the neighbouring fields would be present on the date of alleged incident. Even then, the complainant did not choose to examine any of them as independent witnesses and she has chosen only PWs.2 and 3, out of whom PW.2 was working under her and PW-3 was closely related to her, which shows that she has filed false case against A-1 to A-3 at the instigation of her husband since he was not liking A-1 receiving part of the property of the father of the complainant. He further contended that though there was ample time for the complainant to raise a dispute before the village elders or to complain to the local police with regard to cutting of the crop by A-1 to A-3, she has conveniently preferred a private complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur and the same falsifies her case. He further contends that it is the case of the complainant that A-1 along with 15 other male persons cut the crop and when she questioned them, all of them assaulted her. However, she did not suffer any injuries and the same also falsifies her case. Though the complainant’s case is that she had purchased Ac.0-22 cents of land in 1984 and she alleged to have raised sarava crop in that land, she did not file any documents like sale deed, pattedar passbook and title deeds etc. to show the same, as was rightly observed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the learned trial Court cannot be found fault with for having come to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove her case. Moreover, it is also contended that since no documents were marked on her behalf though PWs.2 and 3 were examined, she had no case and the said private complaint was filed only to settle the old scores with A-1 and the same also goes to falsify the case of the complainant. It is also contended that had the accused, in fact, cut and carried the crop, the right course for the complainant would have been to prefer a police complaint and got the crop recovered. 8. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned judgment and other material on record. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 10. It is to be observed that the father of the complainant had adopted A-1, as he was not blessed with any male issue except the complainant. On that count, there were property disputes between the complainant and A-1. In a partition suit, some land was handed over to A-1 by the Court and the same is indicative of the factor that there are disputes and ill-feelings between the parties. 11. Further as contended by the learned counsel for A-1 to A-3, since it was harvesting season, many workers in the neighbouring fields would be present on the date of alleged incident and the complainant failed to examine any of them as independent witnesses apart from PWs.2 and 3. Furthermore, the case of the complainant is that A-1 along with 15 male persons cut the crop and carried away the same and when she questioned them about their highhandedness, all of them abused and assaulted her. If that is so, certainly she would have suffered injuries, however there is no material to that effect. She also failed to prefer any police complaint and to recover the crop alleged to have been cut and carried away by the accused. The complainant also failed to produce and mark any documents like sale deed, pattedar passbook and title deeds etc. to show her possession and ownership over the land in dispute, as rightly observed by the trial Court. 12. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the trial Court cannot be attributed with any perverseness in passing the impugned judgment. Neither could it be said to be erroneous. Hence, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal of A-1 to A-3 in C.C. No.121 of 2001 dated 08-08-2003 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur, West Godavari District, in all respects. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:____________ ISL/PV