THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.909 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in C.C.No.262 of 2001 dated 27.8.2003 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda district acquitting the respondents 1 and 2/accused 1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC by the defacto-complainant in the case. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.4.2001 at 12.00 noon, the A1 tied a belt around the neck of his wife-A4 and pulled her and bet her for want of additional dowry and thereafter, she escaped from there and informed the said incident to her elder sister-P.W.3 through P.W.2-eye witness to the incident and they both went to Bibinagar and enquired about the incident and then A1 got wild and at the instigation of A2, took out a knife and stabbed P.W.3, wife of the defacto-complainant, due to which P.W.3 received grievous injuries and was admitted in Kamineni Hospital. The case was taken on file under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. For the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P28 were marked. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir, after a detailed consideration of the matter, held that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and therefore acquitted them. Questioning the said order, the defacto-complainant filed the present revision. Though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for orders, no representation is made on behalf of both the parties. The point for consideration in this case is whether the Court below properly examined the evidence adduced and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the judgment passed by it is tenable or not. I have gone through the record. P.W.5 deposed that he received information about the incident and gave report to the concerned police. P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed that the second of them (P.W.3) was stabbed by A1 on her back, but as per P.W.5-Medical Officer, she received injuries on her left scapular and left loin (waist). P.Ws.2 and 4 stated that after the incident, P.W.3 fell unconscious, but according to P.W.5 she was in conscious state when she was brought to him. Further, the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined before the trial Court and thereby the defence lost the opportunity of cross-examining him and discredit the testimonies of the main prosecution witnesses. P.Ws.1 to 4 are inter- related being members of one family. One D.Swamy was cited as independent witness and as the person who shifted the injured to the hospital, but he was not examined. Further, the scope of interfering with the judgment of the lower court is minimum, unless the evidence adduced was most improperly considered, or not at all considered and by doing so, great injustice is done to the defacto- complainant. In such case also, this Court can set aside the acquittal and remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. But in fact, I am of the view that the trial Court properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions while holding that the charge against the accused was not established. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 15.6.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.909 of 2004 15.6.2011