THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.878 OF 2009 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 BETWEEN: MALLIPUDI SYAM BABU .. PETITIONER AND STATE OF A.P. AND OTHS . RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.878 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 1.12.2008 passed in S.C.No.31 of 2006 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, West Godavari District at Eluru, whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge found A1-Guthula Durga Prasad, A2-Guthula Katam Raju and A3-Pamapana Konda not guilty for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act and acquitted them accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is: On 8.12.2002 at about 11 A.M. the accused abused P.W.2 as MADIGA LANJA and insulted her. When P.W.1 who is the son of P.W.2 questioned A1 and A2, they abused him also as MADIGA LANJA KODAKA. P.Ws.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. A panchayat was held with regard to the conduct of the accused in abusing P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused avoided attending the panchayat. Thereby P.W.1 presented Ex.P.1 report before the Station House Officer, Penugonda Police Station on 29.12.2002. P.W.6 A.G.B.Tilak, CI of Police, Penugonda Police Station, received Ex.P.1 report and registered a case in Crime No.128 of 2002 and issued Ex.P.2 FIR. P.W.6 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. He inspected the scene of offence on the same day at 9 p.m. and prepared Ex.P.8 rough sketch of the scene. He altered the section of law from Sec.7(1)(d) of P.C.R.Act to Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act and filed Ex.P.4 alteration memo. P.W.7 took up investigation and examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be presented before the II Additional JMFC, Tanuku. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.7 of 2003 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, W.G. District at Eluru. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C.No.31 of 2006 and made over the same to Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, West Godavari District at Eluru. The learned Special Judge, on appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 4 documents. Plea of the accused was one of total denial of the case. They marked the contradictions in 161 statement of P.Ws.1 to 4 as Exs.D1 to D4. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act and acquitted them accordingly by the judgment impugned in this revision. Hence, this revision by the defacto complainant. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence placed on record and thereby erred in recording acquittal of the accused. A further submission has been made that P.W.1 has given sufficient reasons for the delay in lodging the report before the police and that the trial Court has not considered the reasons assigned by P.W.1 in right perspective and thereby erred in rejecting the evidence of P.W.1. 5. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. 6. I have perused the judgment impugned in this revision. It is the case of P.W.1 that soon after the incident, a panchayat was held but the accused did not appear before the elders and therefore he filed a report before the police. The incident occurred on 8.12.2002 whereas the report came to be presented before the police on 29.12.2002. There is a delay of 21 days in presenting the report. When it is the version of P.W.1 that the accused did not appear before the elders, there was no need for him to wait for 21 long days for presenting the report before the police. P.Ws.3 and 4 claim to be the eye witnesses to the incident. Despite P.W.1 presenting the report after 21 days, he did not choose to mention the names of P.Ws.3 and 4 as eyewitnesses in the report. 7. The trial Court rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 by giving cogent and convincing reasons. I do not see any flaw in the judgment impugned in this revision. Accordingly, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. 14th September, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.878 OF 2009 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009