THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1328 of 2005 Date: 20.09.2011 Between: D. Kotinageswara Prasad … Petitioner AND M. Ram Babu and 5 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1328 of 2005 ORDER: The revision is laid by PW.1 assailing the judgment of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tenali acquitting all the accused. There is no representation for the revision petitioner, who is the de facto complainant. 2. Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 represented that it would appear that the revision petitioner is now no more. As there is no representation for the petitioner, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused, who are respondents 1 to 5 herein, this revision is disposed of. 3. The five accused allegedly committed the offences under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). PW.1 was the tenant of the house owned by A.1. There were disputes between A.1 and PW.1 in respect of the tenancy. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.01.2001 at about 6 a.m. A.1 to A.5 criminally trespassed into the portion in the occupation of PW.1 and necked out PWs.1 and 2 from the house. PW.2 is the daughter of PW.1. The prosecution also alleged that on account of the overt acts of the accused, PW.2 sustained simple injuries. The prosecution accordingly claimed that A.1 to A.5 were guilty of the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of the de facto complainant. PW.5 is the medical officer who treated PW.2. PW.6 was the Investigating Officer. PWs.1 and 2 were the victims. PWs.3 and 4 are supposed to be independent witnesses. PWs.3 and 4, however, did not support the prosecution story. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 alone remained to prove the case of the prosecution. The trial Court pointed out the contradictions between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 on two points. While it is the case of PW.1 that PW.2 was thrown into the drainage canal by the accused, without naming any independent witness, PW.2 claimed that it was A.1 and A.2 who threw him into the drainage canal. Again while PW.1 claimed that A.1 to A.5 alone entered the premises in the occupation of PW.1, PW.2 deposed that the accused along with others entered the premises. On both these grounds, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 did not agree. Where PW.1 is admittedly inimically disposed towards A.1, I am afraid that the contradictions between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 works out as a benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. 5. The trial Court was perfectly justified in concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the light of the contradictions between the evidence of PWs.1 & 2. There is no error apparent in the judgment of the trial Court. 6. The Criminal Revision Case, consequently, is not meritorious and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.09.2011 Isn