THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1048 of 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was examined as P.W.6 in S.C.No.396 of 2000 on the file of the court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool and he is questioning the judgment of the said court dated 24.02.2003 whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges punishable under sections 148, 302, 302 r/w 149, 324 and 324 r/w 149 of IPC and sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. As the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said judgment of acquittal, the petitioner who was examined as P.W.6 approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts of the prosecution are that on 16.11.1998 P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2, 4, 5 and the deceased were returning from Panchayat Office Midthur road after having talks about the settlement of work bills and when they reached Sai Ram School at about 5.40 PM the accused A.1 to A.7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with country made bombs, with the common object of killing Narasanna Goud and his followers. A.1 hurled one country made bomb on Narasanna Goud (the deceased), which hit him, exploded and caused injuries. The deceased fell near drainage canal in front of Sai Ram School. A.2 and A.4 hurled each one country made bomb and caused bleeding injuries. When P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 who were accompanying the deceased tried to intervene, A.3, A.5 to A.7 hurled each one country made bomb on them which fell on the ground near them exploded and caused injuries to them. Subsequently the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, where he was declared died. In that connection a case in Cr.No.122 of 1998 for the alleged offences was registered and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet. 3 Heard both sides. 4 This court is conscious of the fact that this is a revision wherein the scope of this court is very much restricted. Apart from this, this court is of the view that the court below has assigned cogent reasons in arriving at the conclusion that the respondents are not guilty of the offences for which they were tried. 5 Accordingly I see no merits in this revision and is thus dismissed. -------------- 29.07.2010 Kvsn