APHC010625092017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2343/2017 Between: 1. VEJENDLA SUBBA RAO, PRAKASAM DT., S/O. RAGHAVULU, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. ADDANKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP AND ANR, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. VEJENDLA JANARDHANA RAO, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. BEZAWADAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: 2 1. The present Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), has been preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant, assailing the Judgment dated 24.03.2017 in Crl.A.No.129 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (for short, “the 1st Appellate Court”), whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment dated 29.07.2015 passed in C.C.No.432 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole (for short, “the Trial Court”). 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. As seen from the record, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC. 4. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked, and on behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses against him in Telugu. The accused denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he had no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed. 5. The accusation against the 2nd respondent/accused is that, prior to 10.07.2014, he criminally trespassed into the agricultural land of P.W.2 measuring Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.266 of Lingamgunta Village, cut the eucalyptus plants raised by P.W.1, and caused damage amounting to Rs.30,000/-. Based on the report of P.W.1, P.W.5 registered Crime No.125 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. P.W.5 visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch, examined four witnesses, and recorded their statements. On 06.08.2014, a notice under Section 41-A 3 Cr.P.C. was served on the accused, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 6. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 29.07.2015, acquitted the 2nd respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Section 447 and 427 of the IPC. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal, the unsuccessful de facto complainant filed Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2015 before the 1st Appellate Court, and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal vide Judgment dated 24.03.2017 and confirmed the acquittal of the accused. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant/de facto complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the judgment of the learned 1st appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2015. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent/State. 8. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto-complainant submits that according to his instructions, the petitioner died and he also filed the Death Certificate of the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, despite several opportunities, the legal representatives of the petitioner did not appear to contest the revision. Accordingly, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and proceeded to dispose of the revision. 10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Does the judgment rendered by the 1st Appellate Court acquitting the accused warrant any interference? 11. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 4 reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court. 12. A perusal of the record shows that the de facto complainant was examined as P.W.1. As observed by the trial Court in paragraph 16, the evidence of P.W.1, both in his cross-examination and in Ex.P1, clearly establishes that he did not witness the alleged offence. The allegation against the accused is that he committed criminal trespass upon half an acre of agricultural land belonging to P.W.1, situated in Survey No. 266 of Lingamgunta village, and cut eucalyptus plants planting thereon. P.W.1 deposed before the trial Court that he came to know of the incident only through P.Ws.3 and 4, who allegedly informed him that the accused had cut the eucalyptus trees. However, P.Ws.3 and 4, though cited as eyewitnesses, categorically testified that they had no knowledge of the incident. Consequently, the version of P.W.1 that he was informed by P.Ws.3 and 4 is not corroborated by their testimony. Both witnesses turned hostile, and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to support the prosecution’s case. 13. After recording the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4, the Trial Court observed that the culpability of an accused for the offences alleged must be established by clear, cogent, and convincing oral and documentary evidence. In the present case, P.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident, and P.Ws.2 to 4 had turned hostile. For these reasons, the Trial Court declined to place reliance on the testimony of P.W.5. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded that there was not even an iota of oral evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the accused’s involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The Trial Court further noted that there existed prior animosity between P.W.1 and the accused, arising out of several litigations between them, and therefore held that a conviction could not be sustained solely on the testimony of P.W.1. 5 14. The cross-examination of P.W.1 reveals that he had instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.52 of 2012 before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the accused. It further discloses that the accused had earlier filed O.S. No.108 of 1998, in which E.P. No.62 of 2008 is pending against P.W.1 before the same court. Additionally, P.W.1 admitted that his son had filed O.S. No.238 of 2010 against the accused, which is pending before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. P.W.1 also categorically stated that he did not witness the person who cut the eucalyptus plants. 15. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly establishes that multiple civil suits are pending between the parties in relation to the dispute in question. As P.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident and his version is not corroborated by any independent evidence, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. 16. Given the discussions above and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have rendered judicious and well-reasoned judgment, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned judgment is not perverse or illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 24.03.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.129 of 2015 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Interim orders, if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated and consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dated: 22.12.2025 SR 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2343 OF 2017 Dated: 22.12.2025 SR