KARIMI APPALASWAMY Vs. STATE
LAWS(APH)-1955-12-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 08,1955

KARIMI APPALASWAMY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KOTAYYA V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM V. STATE OF KUTCH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

CHINCHOO LINGAYYA VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-1957-10-15] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals are filed by accused 1 to 3 separately. They have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Visakhapatnam under section 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 each. Accused 1, i.e., the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1955, has also been convicted under section 323, Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. Seven persons were tried by the Sessions Judge on these two counts but the Sessions Judge thought that no case was made out against accused 4 to 7 and acquitted them.
(2.)The short facts of the prosecution case are these : P.W. 1, belonging to Bantuvada of Tekkali taluk, Visakhapatnam district, purchased six acres of land in another village Bantukothuru from one Karimi Kurmayyaswami in 1951. After cultivating it for two years, he leased it out in 1953 to P.Ws. 3 and 4 under Exhibit P-10, the terms of which are not quite pertinent here. The tenants raised paddy crop on the land. While the crop was ready for harvesting, accused 1 to 7 trespassed upon the land, cut the crop and stacked it in the field of accused 3, the village munsif of the place. They also caused injuries to P.W. 3 who tried to prevent them from removing the crop. P.W. 11, a brother of P.Ws. 3 and 4, was deputed to carry this information to P.W. 1, the lessor, whose village was 16 miles away from the scene of occurrence. On the way P.W. 11 found P.W. 1 near a coffee hotel between 4. and 5 P.M. and communicated to him the happenings of the day. Thereupon they both came to Bantukothuru. After enquiring P.Ws. 3 and 4, these two persons went to the police station at Kasibugga within whose limits Bantukothuru lay, by midnight. P.W. 1, wrote a report. Exhibit P-12 and took it early morning to the Sub-Inspector's house but he refused to receive it there. So he went to the police station at about 10 A.M. and handed it over to him. The officer entrusted it in his presence to the Head Constable for necessary action. The Head Constable did not start that day and so he remained at Kasibugga that day. Both of them went to the village the next morning. The Head Constable seized the paddy crop stacked in the 3rd accused's field, and examined a number of witnesses. On the 16th the Sub-Inspector came to the village and continued the investigation.
(3.)The eye-witnesses to the occurrence are P.Ws. 3 to 7 and 11. They all stated that while accused 1, 2 and 5 to 7 along with some coolies were cutting the crop, accused 3 and 4 were standing on the bund and encouraging them to do it. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 11 are brothers, P.Ws. 3 and 4 being the tenants. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 are owners of lands in the neighbourhood. They were all agreed that accused 1, 2 and 5 to 7 took active part in the commission of the offence of dacoity. It is not necessary to refer to their evidence in any detail in the view I take of the irregularities in the case. The plea of all the accused was one of denial. The Sessions Judge found only the three appellants guilty of the offence with which they were charged.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.