THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1074 of 2011 BETWEEEN: Chinnam Somireddy … Appellant AND 1. Godavarthi Srirama Murty & 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1074 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The complainant seeks to file appeal against acquittal recorded by the lower Court of the offences punishable under Sections 451, 427, 379/34 I.P.C. Though the complaint was filed against A1 to A4, case against A1 and A3 stood abated in the lower Court, as they are dead subsequent to filing of the complaint. A2 and A4 alone faced trial in the lower Court. A1 is owner of the site in question. One S.R. Metal Works is stated to be leaseholder of the site as per Ex.P8-un-registered lease deed. The complainant claimed himself as managing partner of the lessee and filed this case. A2 is son of A1; and A3 and A4 are stated to be his followers. It is alleged that on 15.12.2000 at 9:00 P.M., A1 to A4 high-handedly trespassed into the land in question and damaged entire structures in the property and took away two lorry tyres. Even though the complainant/PW1 alleges that he gave report to the police immediately thereafter, no evidence is produced by him in the lower Court. On 04.01.2001, PW1 filed private complaint before the lower Court and it was forwarded to the Sitanagaram Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it was registered as case in Crime No.16 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 451, 427, 379/34 I.P.C. After investigation, the Police filed final report referring the case as false. Thereupon, PW1 filed Protest Petition, on which his complaint was registered. During investigation, the Police examined as many as fourteen witnesses before concluding that the complaint was false. In the lower Court, apart from the complainant being examined as PW1, PWs 2 to 5 were examined. PWs 2 to 4 are workers of PW1 and PW5 is a relation of PW1. The lower Court did not place reliance on their evidence because of their interestedness. No independent witnesses were examined by the complainant. There was delay of (20) days in filing the complaint in the lower Court. 2. The lower Court further noticed that O.S.No.277/2000 filed by the complainant against A1 was dismissed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry. The said Suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against A1 and his followers in respect of the disputed site. 3. The lower Court further noticed that the complainanat/PW1 could not establish his status vis-a-vis the lessee. He claims to be managing partner of the lessee. But in Ex.P10, copy of Writ Petition in W.P.No.8506 of 1997, the lessee is shown as a proprietary concern. In the light of the several infirmities in the complainant’s case, the lower Court rightly acquitted A2 and A3. There are no grounds to interfere with the said acquittal in this appeal. 4. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:26.07.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL(SR) No.28327 of 2010 DATED:26.07.2011 ysk