THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRLA. No.251 of 2010 Date: 24.2.2010 Between: The State of A.P rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Appellant. And Alisala Nagendar Rao, Hyderabad and another Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRLA No.251 of 2010 JUDGEMENT: State has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 15.4.2009 passed in C.C.No.774 of 2006 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found A1-Alissala Nagendar Rao and A2-Alisala Pavan Kumar not guilty for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:- 3. P.W.1-Veerabhadraiah is the President of Thogota Veera Kshatriya Social Welfare Association. The Association purchased land bearing S.No.386/2 situated in Pasumamula Village from K.Peddi Raju and another. The Association got the layout approved from the Gram Panchayath of Pasumamula Village. They obtained permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat, developed roads and secured electricity supply. P.W.2- Srinivas is the Watchman of the Association. He informed P.W.1 that some persons trespassed into the land and caused damage by removing plot stones and ploughed the land with the help of a tractor. Thereupon, P.W.1 presented a report before the S.H.O, Hayathnagar Police Station, alleging that A1 & A2, who are the sons of late Hanumantha Rao in whose favour the Government granted Patta for the land in S.No.386/2 of Pasuamula Village, trespassed into the land purchased by the Association, removed the plot stones and ploughed the land with the help of tractor. Basing on the report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P1. P.W.7-V.V.Chalapathi, Sub- Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.699 of 2006 under Sections 447 & 427 IPC. He inspected the scene and prepared scene of offence, which has been exhibited as Ex.P8, in the presence of P.W.5-Chinta Nagaraju and L.W.6-Sana Chalapathi. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene. After completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet before VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.774 of 2006. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing the copies of the documents to them, the learned Magistrate examined them under Section 251 Cr.P.C., putting the substance of accusations leveled against them, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The plea of the accused is one of total denial of the case. 5. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC and acquitted them accordingly, by judgment dated 15.4.2009. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by the State. 6. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and perused the impugned judgment in the appeal. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the trail Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and thereby erred in recording the acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 447 & 427 IPC. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the testimony of P.W.2. 8. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is possible, appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous. 9. P.W.1 is the defcto-complainant. P.W.2 is the eyewitness to the incident. P.Ws.3 & 4 are the plot owners. P.W.5 is the panch witness for the scene of the offence. P.W.6 is the investigating officer. The sole eyewitness to the incident is P.W.2, who is stated to be the watchman engaged by the Association. He categorically stated that he did not inform the names of A1 & A2 as the persons who came up on the land and removed the plot stones and ploughed the land with the help of the tractor. Even the Ex.P1-report, which has been presented by P.W.1, does not contain the names of A1 & A2 as the persons who trespassed the land owned by the Association. The trial Court pointed out this serious lacuna in the prosecution case and observed as hereunder:- “On plain reading of testimony of P.W.2 it is clear that he telephoned to P.W.1 as A1 and A2 came to land and ploughed it. The P.W.2 failed to state the names of A1 and A2 in his statement recorded by the police. Had he stated the names of A1 and A2 to police, or even to P.W.1, their names would have been found in Ex.P1. The PW2 categorically stated that he never mentioned the names of accused to police. It means to say that, neither P.W.2 nor P.W.1 knew the names of the persons illegally trespassed into the disputed plots in the night of 15.11.2006. Therefore, it is clear that there is only mere suspicion over the participation of A1 and A2 in committing offence.” 10. Since P.W.2 failed to mention the names of A1 & A2 as the persons who trespassed the land before the police and even Ex.P1-report presented by P.W.1, does not contain the names of A1 & A2 as the persons, who trespassed the land, the trial Court is justified in recording acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. I do not see any illegality committed by the trial Court in recording the acquittal of the respondents/accused warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 378 (1) (3) Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is dismissed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:24.2.2010 mrb