THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.369 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vayalpad, Chittoor District in C.C.No.46 of 1999 dated 28.07.2009, whereby the respondents herein were acquitted, the de facto complainant in the said case preferred this appeal. 2 Brief facts are that the appellant herein who is de facto complainant in the said case is the landlord and that she planted and raised 600 Jasmine plants in her lands and that at about 10 years back she took an amount of Rs.40,000/-from the first accused and executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the first accused by retaining the possession of the land with her. At about 6 or 7 years back the respondents herein and 3 or 4 others trespassed into her land and plucked Jasmine plants and took away the plants along with them. The nearby landholders witnessed the said incident. Immediately thereafter the petitioner gave report to the police, but as the police did not take any action, she filed a private complaint before the court below, and the court below took the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447 and 427 r/w 149 of IPC after examining the complainant and her witnesses. 3 During the course of trial, the complainant got herself examined as P.W.1 and she also got examined four more witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, after analysing the entire material available on record, dismissed the said case. As stated supra, aggrieved by the said acquittal, the de facto complainant preferred this appeal. 4 Heard. 5 As seen from the record, this court is of the view that there are so many discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant as P.W.1 says that nearly seven persons have trespassed into her land, P.W.2 says that he saw 15 persons entered the land of the complainant, whereas P.W.3 deposed that nearly 30 to 40 persons entered the land. So there is inconsistency with regard to the number of persons entering the land of the complainant. Hence there is no corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Magistrate has rightly considered all these aspects in detail and hence this court is of the view that the complainant failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447 and 427 r/w 149 of IPC and so there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and accordingly this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6 In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. -------------- 18.03.2010 kvsn