Telangana High Court
B.Venkata Raju Died Rep By B.Surya ... vs Kantheti Ramakrishnaraju And Another, on 28 December, 2021
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRL.R.C.Nos. 1701 and 1708 of 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both these Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the common judgment of the learned VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in Crl.A.Nos.81 and 89 of 2002, dated 19.06.2006, whereby the learned Judge, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, vide it's judgment, dated 29.06.2002, in C.C.No.24 of 1998, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are that P.W.1 is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.9.25 gts., in Sy.No.154 situated at Ainapur Village and he had entrusted the said land to A-1 to look after the same, but A-1 sold it to A-2 by forging the signature of P.W.1 and executed a registered sale deed and that A-3 and A-4 attested the said sale deed. Hence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint before the police, basing on which, a case in Crime No.18 of 1995 was registered against A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 of 2 I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against them.
On appearance of the accused, a charge under Section 468 of I.P.C. was framed against A-1, a charge under Section 471 of I.P.C. was framed against A-2 and a charge under Section 468 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. was framed against A-3 and A-4. The plea of the accused before the trial Court is one of total denial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 and D-2 were marked.
After considering the rival submissions made by the prosecution as well as the accused and on a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, convicted A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 468 of I.P.C., A-2 for the offence punishable under Section 471 of I.P.C.; and A-3 and A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 468 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. and all of them were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
3
In the appeals preferred by the accused, the learned VI- Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A-1 to A-4 and they are acquitted for the offences with which they are charged. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of P.W.1 (B.Venkata Raju), preferred both these criminal revisions.
Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.
A perusal of the impugned common judgment would show that relying upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, Hyderabad v. Boddula Mallesham1, the appellate Court held that the evidence of P.W.9/Hand Writing Expert is not helpful to the case of prosecution since the specimen signatures of the accused were not taken in the presence of the Court. The appellate Court further held that in Exs.D1 and D2, which are the portions of statement of P.W.6/Mandal Revenue Officer recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there are material contradictions with regard to his obtaining specimen signatures of the accused. However, non-examination of the 1 (1997) 1 ALT (Crl.) 719 (A.P.) 4 Investigating Officer by the prosecution to prove the said material contractions in Exs.D1 and D2, is fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, on reappraisal of entire evidence, the appellate Court has given a categorical finding that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A-1 to A-4 by treating the same as illegal and unsustainable in law. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. Both the Criminal Revision Cases lack merit and they are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed, confirming the impugned common judgment, dated 19.06.2006, passed Crl.A.Nos.81 and 89 of 2002 on the file of the VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.12.2021 gkv/Gsn 5