MUPPARAJU GOVINDAIAH Vs. KOTA RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the Sessions Judge, Guntur Division, in a revision against the order of the Taluk Magistrate, Vinukonda, discharing the accused under section 253 (2), Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution may be stated : On the night of 10th January, 1954, between 11 P.M. and midnight, the accused, the 2nd accused being the son and the 3rd accused being the wife of the ist accused, went to the complainant's house and demanded the return of certain jewels, which were stolen from their house, or, in the alternative, to pay their cost amounting to Rs. 135. The complainant was put in imminent fear and he paid Rs. 135 to the 3rd accused. The complaint was filed under secitions 348, 504 and 447, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, after examining all the witnesses but one mentioned in the complaint, discharged the accused as he came to the conclusoin that the charge against them was groundless. He gave the following reasons for his view that the charge was groundless: (i) The evidence for the prosecution was thoroughly artificial. (ii) All the P.Ws. denied knowledge of the theft itself though they were neighbours. (iii) There was no mention of the theft to the Village Munsif or to the Police. (iv) The complainant, instead of giving a report of the offence at Inavole Police Station having jurisdiction over the village, took a laborious journey to Darsi and from Darsi to Kuruchedu by bus and from Kuruchedu to Narasaraopet by train to get the complaint petition drafted. (v) P.Ws. 2 to 4 are closely related to one another. (vi) Only one witness remained to be examined out of the list of P.Ws. but none of the witnesses examined so far gave the names of any of the witnesses not examined. (vii) There were material discrepancies in the evidence given by the P.Ws.

(3.) After having given the aforesaid reasons, the Magistrate gave his conclusion as follows :-