IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD MONDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2006 Between : Natava Yellaiah … Appellant-complainant V/s. Kamatham China Narayana & 8-Ors. … Respondents-Accused Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Meherchand Nori Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 8 (A-1 to A-8) : Sri J. Janakirami Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.9: Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: (Judgment follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1189 OF 2006 J U D G M E N T : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19- 12-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, in CC.No. 1394 of 2000, acquitting the respondents 1 to 8 (A-1 to A-8) of the offences punishable under section 147, 447, 427 r/w section 149 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 (A-1 to A-8). 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows : According to the appellant, he purchased Ac:03-1/2 cents of vacant site situated in Survey No. 419/2 at Giddalur (v) under a registered sale deed dated 18-4-1995 and laid foundation and raised basement after submitting plan to the Gram Panchayat. When A-1 tried to interfere with his possession, he filed OS.No. 96 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur on 19-6-1995 and obtained exparte interim injunction against A-1. It is said that the said injunction was made absolute on 08-07- 1998. Subsequently A-1’s wife filed OS.No.212 of 1999 in respect of some of the property and obtained statusquo order. It was alleged by the appellant that between 22-12-1999 and 25-12-1999 all the respondents trespassed into his site and dismantled the basement. He lodged a report to the police on 22-12-1999 but no action was taken. Thereafter, he filed the private complaint. 4. In the course of trial before the learned Magistrate, PWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellant and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record and keeping in mind a civil dispute which had arisen between the parties acquitted A-1 to A-8 of the offences punishable under section 147, 447, 427 r/w. section 149 of IPC. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that despite there is enough evidence on record, warranting conviction against the respondents 1 to 8 for the offence of criminal trespass and mischief, the learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondents and the said finding is liable to be set aside in this criminal appeal. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 would submit that the learned trial Court after elaborately discussing the entire evidence, acquitted A-1 to A-8 having found that the evidence is vague and it does not warrant any conviction. 7. The appellant was examined as PW-1 and another witness was examined as PW-2. Both of them however stated in their deposition about the respondents 1 to 8 dismantling the basement in the site from 22-12- 1999 to 25-12-1999. As rightly observed by the learned trial Court except making bald allegation, that all the respondents dismantled the basement, the manner in which the basement was dismantled for a period of three days was not stated by the witnesses in their deposition. Further as per the certified copy of the judgment in OS.No. 96 of 1995 in which the appellant is the plaintiff, the learned Junior Civil Judge held that though the plaintiff proved that he purchased the schedule mentioned site under a registered sale deed, he failed to prove his possession over the said site. Though the Commissioner found the existence of the basement, the learned trial Court observed that the appointment of the Commissioner and his visit was subsequent to the alleged incident in this case; and therefore, the evidence of the Commissioner is of no consequence. When the act of demolition of basement continued for a period of three days, the appellant could have, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial Court, took some photograph of the site when the act of demolition was going on and could have filed them into the court. Moreover, when there is a civil dispute between both parties and the Civil Court held that the plaintiff i.e., the appellant herein failed to establish the identity of the property and his possession over the property. The learned trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondents 1 to 8 since there is scramble for possession between the parties, the learned trial Court upon properly appreciating of the evidence on record and having regard to the civil dispute rightly acquitted the respondents 1 to 8. This Court in an appeal against the acquittal will interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court only when they are not based on evidence or perverse. It is not possible in this case to take any such view. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondents 1 to 8 (A-1 to A-8) is confirmed in the appeal. 9. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 19-09-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1189 OF 2006 Circulation No. 02 Date: 19-09-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43