HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1399 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- P.W.1 against the judgment dated 14.05.2004 passed in S.C.No.126 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, acquitting the respondents 2 to 14- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and 302 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that there are political ill- feelings between the groups of one Yedururi Peda Nagi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and of the accused. It is stated that in the early hours of 23.04.1998, all the accused armed with lethal weapons like axes and knives came to the field of the deceased called ‘Nadivagu Chenu’, where the deceased and his son, who was examined as P.W.1, were sleeping, and that A1 to A4 hacked P.W.1 with axes and A-5 stabbed on his left ribs. A- 1 hacked on the nape of the deceased, whereas the remaining accused beat the deceased indiscriminately. Subsequently, the police registered a case in Crime No. 10 of 1998 on the file of Thallur Police Station and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and 302 of I.P.C. and that the accused were tried for the said offences. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23 and M.Os.1 to 10 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused D.W.1 was examined. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to produce positive, cogent, reliable and corroborative evidence to sustain the theory of commission of offence by the accused, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against the judgment of acquittal under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the scope and jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this Court in rarest of rare cases when the Court below has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Here in this case, the finding of the Court below is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the said finding needs no interference. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 03-02-2011 Gsn.