THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1884 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto- complainant against the judgment dated 20.8.2004 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2002 on the file of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The case of the prosecution is as follows: There are disputes between A1 and P.W.1-M. Ramatulasamma in respect of a path way in between their houses. Often, A1 used to pick up quarrels with P.W.1. While so, on 11.8.1998 at about 10 a.m., when P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., M. Venkatravamma were standing in their site, all the accused attacked on P.W.1. P.W.2 questioned them about their high handed behaviour. A1 beat P.W.1 with a stick on her left knee, A2 beat her on her back, A3 to A5 pushed her down and beat her indiscriminately and A4 beat her with a stone on her left hand wrist. When P.W.2 came in rescue of P.W.1, A1 beat her with a stick on the right knee, A2 beat her with a stick on her waist, A4 beat her fingers back, A5 beat her with a stick on her left hand, A1, A2 and A4 torn her blouse and also pulled her upper clothes by insulting her modesty. The same was witnessed by L.Ws.3 to 9 i.e., Nidamanuri Suresh Babu, Mandadapu Sambaiah, Vudumula Sivaramireddy, Koya Chandramouli, Ramasani Kotaiah, Ramasani Apparao and Muvva Hanumantharao. On the same day, P.W.1 presented a report to B. Chande Naik, S.I. of police, Sattenapalli Rural Police station and the said report was registered as Cr.No.109 of 1998 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and 354 IPC. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli took cognizance of the same and numbered it as P.R.C. and after following the procedure, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Guntur and the learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsaraopet for disposal. The same was numbered as S.C.No.347 of 1999. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced them as follows: A1, A2, A4 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under section 354 IPC; A1 and A2 were sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. for one month for the offence under section 324 IPC; A3 to A5 were sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to suffer S.I. for one month for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 IPC; A1, A2, A5 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for two months under section 324 IPC; A3 and A4 were sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.35 of 2002 before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the appeal acquitting all the accused. Challenging the same, the defacto- complainant filed the present revision. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant that the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the material evidence in a proper perspective and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and reliable one, but the lower appellate Court has failed to consider the same and therefore, the judgment impugned herein needs interference by this Court. The scope of the revision is very limited. However, it has to be examined as to whether there is any perversity in the findings of the lower appellate Court on the question of facts. On a perusal of the material on record and the evidence, it is obvious that the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to the overt acts of the accused is different and there are number of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Further, the overt acts attributed are not supported by seizure of any incriminating material viz., blouse. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no direct evidence and no incriminating material in support of the case of the prosecution. It is also apparent on the face of the record that there are some civil disputes in between the accused and P.W.1. In such a case, occurrence of petty quarrels between the parties is not unnatural. The evidence of medical officer shows that the injuries of P.Ws.1 and 2 are simple in nature. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court has rightly thrown away the case of the prosecution and that the judgment impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and therefore, the revision case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 24th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1884 of 2004 24.3.2011