THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 OF 2004 DATED 1st DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : The State of A.P. .. Appellant and Kodali Prabhakara Rao & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellant-State challenging the judgment, dated 22.10.2002, passed by the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle, in Calendar Case No.276 of 2001. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: House admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents situated in survey No.108/99 is the ancestral property of one Gogineni Lenin and the same is being used by Malladi Raghavaiah and he raised a hay-rick therein. Due to ill-feelings in between said Lenin and Raghavaiah, the titleholder Lenin asked Raghavaiah to vacate the said site for which Raghavaiah put a deaf ear. On 19.05.2001 on the requisition of Gogineni Lenin, P.W.4-Mandal Surveyor of Cherukupalli Mandal measured the said site and fixed boundary stones. On the instructions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, two persons were deputed for bandobust duty at the time of measuring the site. At the time of measuring, A.1 to A.3 came to the scene of offence. P.W.4 after completion of measuring the site went away. Then, A.1 to A.3 started removing the hayrick. A.1 also picked up a quarrel with P.W.1, pulled the stick from the hands of P.W.1 and beat him on his head and caused bleeding injury. PWs 2 to 5 and others witnessed the occurrence. After carefully going through the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the learned Magistrate acquitted A.1 to A.3 under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. Challenging the same, present appeal has been preferred by the State. Heard. The version of the Prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 was possessing some sticks and there was a dispute regarding the land. A.1 taken the stick from the hands of P.W.1 and caused injuries and A.2 and A.3 also caused injuries with hands. After completion of trial, the learned Magistrate disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and also opined that at the time of occurrence 50 to 60 persons were present and it is not possible for the witness to identify the persons, who caused injuries. Further, he has stated that the ASI was present and his presence is unbelievable. Hence, he eschewed the evidence of A.S.I. On a perusal of the entire record, there is some reasonable doubt regarding the manner in which the attack was taken place and also the presence of the accused. Hence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused. It is well settled that in an appeal 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 impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 01.12.2010 sur