IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.457 OF 2010 Between: Chikkudu Bala Raju … PETITIONER And Chikkudu Rajaiah and others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.457 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The de facto complainant/PW.1 seeks to file this revision petition against judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karimnagar, in C.C.No.698 of 2005, dated 07.08.2007. Under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. this Court cannot alter finding as to acquittal into one of conviction in a revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 2. A1/first respondent is brother of the de facto complainant/petitioner/PW.1. The dispute between them is with regard to certain gold, cash and Kisan Vikas Patras left by their deceased father. According to PW.1, A1 removed the said valuables with a view to appropriate the same for himself. Except PW.1, no other witness supported the prosecution case. In Kisan Vikas Patras, son of the accused is stated to have been shown as nominee of the deceased father. Therefore, even if the allegations are correct with regard to the said Patras, A1 cannot be blamed for taking away the same. Further, even though there is no reliable evidence with regard to removal of gold and money, the lower Court came to the conclusion that for funeral expenses and obsequies, A1 might have spent money left by the deceased father. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even though PWs. 2 to 4 turned hostile to the prosecution, the lower Court did not take note of Ex.P2 to P4, which are statements of PWs.2 to 4 recorded by the police during investigation under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Exs.P2 to P4 have absolutely no evidentiary value. They can be used only for contradicting evidence of PWs.2 to 4 respectively. Since, PWs.2 to 4 did not speak anything against the accused, Exs.P2 to P4 are of no use. The lower Court rightly acquitted the accused having regard to prosecution evidence, which was not relied upon by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 05, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.457 OF 2010 July 05, 2010