HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Appeal No.881 of 2008 Between: Pepakayala Suryarao S/o Subbarao, aged 65 years, Hindu, Atreyapuram, East Godavari district, Kothapeta JCJC (Senior Citizen) ….Appellant/Complainant And: Pennada Gandhi S/o Narasimhamurthy, aged 50 years Hindu, R/o Agraharam Atreyapuram, East Godavari district, Kothapeta JCJC & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Appeal No.881 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.08.2007 in CC No.459 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapet, wherein, the first respondent herein- accused was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and was acquitted thereof. 2. Heard the appellant, who appeared as party-in-person and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed a complaint against the first respondent before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapet alleging in brief as follows: On 14.08.2004 on the forenoon, the accused criminally trespassed in to the land of the complainant and forcibly cut Palmyra trees and took away the said trees. The complainant gave a report to the S.H.O., Atreyapuram, but the police did not take any action. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC in CC No.459 of 2005. After appearance of the accused, necessary charges were framed against him for the offences alleged and the accused pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, complainant examined himself as PW.1 and examined PWs.2 to 4 and marked Ex.P.1. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced but Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked. 4. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty of the above offences and acquitted him thereof. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the present appeal. 5. The complainant relies upon the testimony of himself. The other three witnesses PWs.2 to 4 examined by him have all turned hostile and did not support his version. The complainant alleges that on 14.08.2004, the accused trespassed into his land and illegally cut Palmyra trees and carried them away. Though the offence is said to have taken place during broad-day-light, no witness is forthcoming to support the version of the complainant and all the three witnesses PWs.2 to 4 examined by the complainant, have turned hostile and did not support his version. Neither the complaint nor the evidence of PW.1 would disclose the details except making bald allegation that on the forenoon of 14.08.2004, the accused trespassed in to his land and forcibly cut and carried away the Palmyra trees. No particulars are mentioned either in the complaint or in the evidence as to at what time or with whose assistance the accused has cut the trees and carried them away. It is improbable and hard to believe that any one without the assistance of others has committed the offences of the nature alleged by the complainant, as either cutting the Palmyra trees or transporting them would necessarily involve the support of several persons. 6. According to the complainant, he gave a report to the police on the same day i.e., 14.08.2004 and that no action was taken. The result of the investigation into the said complaint is not known. The present private complaint was filed before Magistrate on 19.08.2004 as seen from the copy of FIR. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it was received by the police on 15.10.2004. After investigation, police filed final report to the effect that the case is of civil nature. Admittedly, there was exchange of legal notices between the complainant and the accused over a dispute pertaining to the land and the accused filed suit OS No.100 of 2008 against the complainant before the Junior Civil Judge, Kothapet claiming damages. As seen from the record, several civil and criminal cases are pending between both parties. 7. Under those circumstances, the learned Magistrate has rightly held in the absence of any corroboration and all the three other witnesses PWs.2 to 4 have turned hostile, it is not safe to rely upon the sole and self-serving testimony of the comlainant-PW.1 to base conviction. In view of paucity of evidence, the allegation made by the complainant pertaining to the alleged offences, remains totally unsubstantiated. The ingredients of the alleged offences have not been established at all by the complainant as against the accused. Under those circumstances, the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothapet acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC, does not call for any interference. 8. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 10.09.2009 bss