THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2009. DATED: 10-09-2009. Between: State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Appellant/complainant and 1.Pamarthi Chiranjeevi and 11 others …Respondents/accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2009. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (3) and (1) Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondents-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short’ ‘IPC’) passed by the II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tanuku, vide judgment, dated 28-11-2002, in C.C.No.116 of 2000. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: P.W.1 was the tenant in respect of Ac.1.70 cents out of Ac.8.00, situated in Chivatam village belonging to Lord Sri Ekambareswaraswamy Varu at Chivatam since long time. On 20- 11-1996, as some persons occupied the land, a case in Cr.No.100 of 1996 under Section 447 was registered and the police after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet and the same is pending as C.C.172 of 1999. On 13-08-1999, while P.W.1 and his elder brother’s son tried to plough the land, A2 to A12 allegedly occupied the land. Subsequently with the active support of A1, obstructed P.Ws. 1 and 2 in ploughing the land. Again on 23-08-1999 at about 8.00 A.M. while P.W.1 was present in the cattle shed, A1 to A3 picked up a quarrel with him and used criminal force. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1, police registered a case for the above offences. 3. When the accused were examined under Sections 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, they denied the offences pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, acquitted them. Hence, this appeal by the State. 7. Heard, the counsel representing the learned public prosecutor. 8. Now, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Section 447 prescribes punishment for Criminal Trespass. Criminal Trespass is defined under Section 441 IPC, which is as follows: “Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains therewith intent thereby to intimidate, insult or anon any such person, or with intention to commit an offence.” 10. P.W.1 was claiming the land as a tenant and therefore, he was in possession of the land to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents out of Ac.8.00. He has not filed a single scrap of paper to show that lease was duly approved by the Endowment Department as admittedly, the land in question belong to Lord Sri Ekambareswara Swamyvaru of Chivatam village. Therefore, except the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5, there is no other evidence. P.W.5 said to be the sub-tenant under P.W.1, whereas P.Ws. 1 and 2 are closely related to each other. The presence of P.W.3 has not been spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the time of the incident. P.W.5 was an interested witness. Therefore, the trial Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5. Unless it is shown that P.W.1 was duly inducted in respect of the land in question, question of trespass by any other person does not arise. The Investigating Officer has not obtained any records from the Endowment Department to show that P.W.1 was the cultivating tenant in respect of the land in question. When P.W.1 was claiming that he was the cultivating tenant of the land in question, the proof of evidencing possession should be available either with P.W.1 or with the Endowments Department. But the document, which shows about the exclusive possession of P.W.1 over land in question has not produced before the trial Court. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn about non-production of the document relating to the lease of the land in favour of P.W.1. If the documents are produced, they would reveal the correct state of affairs, but purposefully, the prosecution omitted to file those documents. The reasons are obvious. As P.W.1 failed to show that he was in possession of the land in question as a tenant, question of trespass by the accused does not arise. Basing on the evidence, the trial Court rightly found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and none of the findings is shown to be incorrect or illegal or improper so as to call for interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, judgment, dated 28-11-2002, in C.C.No.116 of 2000, on the file of the II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tanuku. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 10-09-2009 Hsd