HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.961 OF 2006 DATED: 05.09.2011 BETWEEN: Mallidi Veereddy .. Appellant/Complainant And Chinta Suryanarayana Reddy and others .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.961 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 01.04.2004 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram in C.C.No.1427 of 2000. 2. I have heard Sri A.Gopalakrishnamacharyulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Sesharajyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 3. The respondents were tried by the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 379 and 451 of IPC and they were acquitted of the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the present appeal. 4. The short facts required for considering the present appeal may be stated as follows: The appellant filed a private complaint against the respondents alleging that at about 9.00 AM on 03.04.1999 the respondents 1 to 5 came in a car bearing No. ABP 8699, trespassed into the son-in-law’s house of Pw.1/complainant, committed theft of water motor and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 379 of IPC. 5. Before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused, examined Pws.1 to 3. No documents were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The respondents did not propose to examine any defence witness nor marked any documents. After considering the entire material on record, the learned trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal against which the present appeal is filed. 6. PW1 is the complainant, PW.2 is his son-in-law. PWs.1 and 2 stated in their evidence that while PW.2 was lifting the water with the aid of electric motor to the water tank, all the respondents trespassed into the house, brought down the motor from the first floor of the house, put the motor in their car and despite the protest made by PW.1 took away the motor by placing it in the dickey of the car. The incident took place in the village of Wanaparthy. Pw.3, resident of Balabhadrapuram nearby village stated before the learned Magistrate that he saw the respondents 3 to 5 entering into the house of PW.1, removing the motor despite his objection brought down the same, placed it in the car dickey and went away. 7. The house admittedly belongs to Pw.2, who is the daughter of PW.1. It was borne out from the evidence before the learned trial Court that there were disputes between the prosecution party and the respondents and several civil and criminal cases were pending between the parties on the date of alleged incident. PW.2 admitted in the cross- examination that the Executive Officer of the Grampanchayat filed a case against him in which he was convicted. The record placed by the prosecution party did not show that either PW.1 lodged any report with the police, or placed the matter before the Sarpanch or elders of the village. It was also admitted by PW.1 in the cross-examination that some criminal cases filed by the first respondent against PW.2 were pending on the date of incident. It was brought on record in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that several people were gathered at the time of incident, but the prosecution except examining PW.3, who belongs to a different village as independent witness neither examined neighbours nor any villagers of Wanaparthy. PW.3 stated in his cross-examination that his village is at a distance of 4 km from Wanaparthy. He was working in ILTD company, therefore, his presence on the date of incident and place of occurrence was considered very much doubtful by the learned trial Court. Further, the prosecution did not adduce any documentary evidence about the ownership of the motor. It was also observed by the learned trial court that normally the motor will be installed in the ground floor and that it was quite un-convincing to say that the motor was installed in the first floor of the building. 8. The accused No.1 was aged 65 years on the date of incident, the accused 2 to 5 were employees of the Grampanchayat. It is not understandable as to why the employees of the Grampanchayat participated in the offence of committing theft of motor. Further, the prosecution did not examine PW.2, who is the owner of the motor and the learned trial Court rightly held that non-examination of PW.2 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 9. Considering the above mentioned aspects, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court of course can reappraise the evidence, but only when the findings recorded by the trial Court are either not based on evidence or perverse. In the instant case, the learned trial Court recorded all the findings basing on the evidence forthcoming before it and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the enmity between the parties which lead to pendency of several cases between them and also the improbabilities as to the very nature of occurrence, the learned trial Court rightly recorded the order of acquittal which does not require any interference in this appeal. 10. Consequently the appeal filed by the complainant against the order of acquittal fails and the same is dismissed. __________________ Date: 05.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.961 OF 2006 DATE: 05.09.2011