THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1561 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein a case in Cr.No.129 of 1999 was registered against five accused for the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 302 r/w 149, 447 r/w 120-B of IPC. After investigation the police filed charge sheet and on committal the same was numbered as S.C.No.385 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2 Brief facts are that there was enmity between A.1 to A.5 and the deceased Balaraj. The deceased was harassing A.1 to A.3 from 20 years. He was also blackmailing their mother alleging that he had illicit intimacy with her and that he will reveal the same to others. Therefore, A.1 to A.5 formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and knives, with the common object to kill the deceased on 7.10.1999 at about 8.30 P.M. The deceased along with P.W.1 P. Shanker came to Ramesh Hair Dressers of P.W.2 situated at Kamela road on Hero Honda Motor Cycle. While the deceased went inside the hair cutting saloon of P.W.2 for the purpose of shaving, P.W.1 was sitting on Hero Honda Motor Cycle outside the saloon. Then A.1 to A.5 in furtherance of their common object to kill the deceased armed with deadly weapons went inside the barber shop and attacked the deceased and caused him severe injuries with the axe and knives and went away. In that connection a case in Cr.No.129 of 1999 was registered initially for the offences punishable under sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The deceased was taken to the hospital and while he was undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 03.11.1999 at 3.55 A.M and on receipt of death intimation of the deceased the police altered the section of law and issued altered F.I.R. During the course of investigation the accused were apprehended and the weapons, which was used in commission of the offence were also seized. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet. During the course of trial the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.35 and M.Os.1 to 6 were also marked. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.12 were marked. 3 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the entire material available on record held that A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 148, 447, 120-B and 302 r/w 149 of IPC, and A.4 and A.5 are also not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, acquitted them of the said offences. But, however, held that A.1 to A.3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the said acquittal of A.4 and A.5, the petitioner Smt. Rupa Kala who is none other than the wife of the deceased in the said case and who was examined as P.W.8 filed the present revision invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 4 In fact the trial court has given the maximum sentence in so far as the A.1 to A.3 are concerned. For valid reasons and discussion in the said judgment it recorded acquittal of the other two accused of all the offences and further it is only a revision against the acquittal of two accused where the jurisdiction of this court is limited and this court cannot give an altogether different finding. If any material irregularity is committed by the court below, at best this court can remand the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal according to the material available before it. But, as seen from the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the considered view that the court below has given valid and cogent reasons for its coming to the said conclusion and giving such a finding, which in my considered view does not warrant any interference. One more aspect which is prompting this court to come to this view is that the convicts in the said case must have preferred an appeal to this court and the same must have also been disposed of either way by now. In those circumstances, this court finds no merits in this revision and hence the same is accordingly dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 15.07.2010