STATE Vs. SHAIK SHAMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State had preferred the present appeal as against the judgment dated 17-3-1998 in C.C. No. 446 of 1996 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, wherein acquittal was recorded.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Chenna Kesavulu Venkateswara Rao is the brother of one Ummadisetty Krishnamurthy is the brother-in-law of Ummadisetty Ganga Bhavani (P.W. 1).The Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted house plots to Chennakesavulu Venkateswara Rao and Ummadisetty Krishnamurthy at Ranigarithota, Vijayawada and both have constructed the houses of that plots and jointly sold their houses to A-9 under registered sale deed. A-9 paid some of the amount and allowed Ummadisetty Ganga Bhavani (P.W. 1) and her husband to reside in one portion till the payment was made and surrendered another portion to collect rent. Due to past disputes arose between A-9 and the brother-in-law of Ummadisetty Ganga Bhavani (P.W. 1) regarding the outstanding amount due, and at last, A-9 approached Civil Court. On 19-01-1996 at about 8.00 p.m., all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like axes, rods, knives etc., with common object trespassed into the house portion of Ummadisetty Ganga Bhavani (P.W. 1) and shouted on her to vacate it. Ummadisetty Ganga Bhavani (P.W. 1) pleaded the accused to wait for some time till the arrival of her husband. All the accused paid deaf ear and threw the household articles out of the house, and necked her out from the house portion by giving threat that they kill see her end in case she stepped into the house portion and they have caused loss of Rs. 1,000/- worth of damage to the household articles by throwing outside of the house. Ummadisetty Baby Durga Devi (P.W. 2), Perni Dilip Kumar (L.W. 3), Jalagam Veerabhadra Rao (P.W. 3), Jalagam Venkata Laxmi Narasamma (L.W. 5). Paluri Durgarao (L.W. 6), Paluri Parvathi (L.W. 7), Gokati Srinivasarao (L.W. 8), Gokati Padma (L.W. 9) and Yerrapoathu Durga (L.W. 10) are witnesses to the above occurrence and when the residents admonished the accused, they went away. Ummadisetty Ganga Bhavani (P.W. 1) came to the police station and presented Ex. P-1-report to R. Venkateswararao, Head Constable-443 (P.W. 6), who in turn registered the same as a case in Crime No. 25 of 1996 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 427 and 506 IPC and issued Ex. P-4 FIR. V. Gopalakrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W. 14) inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of mediators i.e., Boddu John Samuel Raju (P.W. 4) and Nayudu Varahalarao (P.W. 5) and got prepared Exs. P-2 and P-3. The Sub- Inspector of Police arrested A-1 to A-6 and A-7 to A-9 on 19-01-1996 and 13-03-1996 respectively and after completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) P.W. 1 is the defacto-complainant, who lodged Ex. P-1 -report about the occurrence. P.W. 2 is the daughter of P.W. 1. P.W. 3 is a resident of that locality said to be the eyewitness of the occurrence. P. Ws. 4 and 5 are the mediators, and Exs. P-2 and P-3 were prepared in their presence. P.W. 6 is the Head Constable, who registered Ex. P-1- report and issued Ex. P-4-FIR to the concerned. Ex. P-1 is the report presented by P.W. 1. Ex. P-2 is the mediators' report prepared by P.W. 5. Ex. P-3 is the observation report prepared by P.W. 5. On appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and also Exs. P-1 to P-4, the learned Judge had recorded acquittal. Hence, the appeal.