THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.603 OF 2005 DATED 16th SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : B.Subba Rao .. Petitioner-De facto complainant and The State of A.P. & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.603 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner- de facto complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.11.2002 rendered in Sessions Case No.338 of 2000 wherein the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, acquitted the respondents 2 to 9/A-1 to A-8 for the respective charges framed against them. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that the houses of A.1 and the de facto complainant are situated side by side and the family members of the complainant used to make use of the site belonging to A.1 to reach the road, for which A.1 objected. There were disputes regarding the same between the parties and civil suit is also pending. In this context A.1 to A.8 conspired together to do away the life of the complainant. While so, on 04.09.1999 at about 11.30 a.m. A.1 to A.8 armed with knives, axes, pestle, sticks, crew-bar started construction of compound wall and when the de facto complainant and his family members objected the same, all the accused beat them with above said arms and caused injuries. On receipt of written report from the complainant, Police registered a case in crime No.373 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 327 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. When charges under Sections 148 of Indian Penal Code against A.1 to A.8, under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code against A.1, A.2, A.4, under Section 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code against A.1, A.3 to A.8, A.1 to A.3, under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code against A.1, A.5, A.6 and A.7, under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code against A.3, under Section 352 of Indian Penal code against A.3 & A.6 and under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and MOs 1 to 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material read over to them, which is available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. Though they failed to adduce any oral evidence on their behalf, got marked Exs.D.1 to D.6 in support of their case. After careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole, acquitted all the accused under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the respective charges levelled against them. Challenging the same, this revision has been preferred by the de facto complainant. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is perverse in nature and the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. This Court perused the entire material on record. In a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is binding towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 16th September, 2010. sur