THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1794 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein a case in Cr.No.34 of 2000 was registered by the Station House Officer, Pamulapadu P.S. for the offence punishable sections 509, 324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC against the respondents herein. After investigation the Police filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.489 of 2000 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.O.1. On behalf of the respondents though no oral evidence was let in, Ex.D.1 and D.2 were marked. The learned Magistrate, having analysed the said evidence, found the respondents not guilty of the said offences and accordingly acquitted them by his judgment dated 04.09.2003. As the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said judgment, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in the said case filed the present revision. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 28.11.2000 at 2.00 PM. P.W.1 found her sit wetted in front of her house and picked up a quarrel with the respondents herein who are accused 1 to 3 in the said case. Then the accused grew wild and pushed her down. A.2 caught hold of her hair, A.1 kicked with legs on her abdomen and A.3 beat with stick on her back and back of the right shoulder and caused injuries. A.1 also beat her on her right fore arm, right wrist, right upper arm and right foot with a stick and he also fisted on her mouth and caused severe injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.34 of 2000 was registered for the alleged offences and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet. 3 Heard. 4 Having gone through the entire material available on record, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference. The evidence of the material witnesses is not in consonance with Ex.P.1 which was given at the earliest point of time and upon which the law was set into motion. There are so many contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1. So many statements which P.W.1 had spoken to in her evidence could not be found in her Ex.P.1 report. The trial court has gone into all these aspects in acquitting the accused. Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is dismissed. -------------- 28.10.2010 Kvsn