THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.689 of 2004 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 27.01.2004 in S.C.No.325 of 1999 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad, acquitting respondent No.1/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506, 326 and 323 IPC. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Court below, are as follows: On 11.04.1999, L.W.1 – Chitla Nagalaxmi, a divorced woman took some vegetables in a small bag and started from Gudirevu Village to go to Kasipalli Village to prepare food at her maternal uncle’s house. On the way, near the field of L.W.6 – Tummati Shankaraiah, at about 11.00 hours, the accused came to her, enquired about her journey, caught hold her hands and forced her for sexual intercourse with him. When she struggled, the accused pulled her down, which resulted in simple injuries to her. The accused put the saree in her mouth and threatened her to kill by throwing in the well, if she did not agree. L.W.6 – Tunnati Shankaraiah witnessed it along with L.Ws.3 and 4 – Gurram Sudhakar and Gudiapelli Swamy. On her cries, the accused fled away. On 12.04.1999 at 13.00 hours, the victim came to the police station and reported the matter orally and the oral statement was reduced into writing by the Sub-Inspector of Police and a case in Crime No.30 of 1999 under Sections 354 and 506 IPC was registered and investigated into. The Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, drawn the rough sketch, drafted panchanama in the presence of Bandari Bheemaiah and Chitla Lachaiah and referred the injured- victim to Dr.Nirmala Devi, Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Luxettipet for treatment. On 15.04.1999 at 10.00 hours, the accused was arrested at Gudirevu Village and the accused confessed the crime. Hence, the charge sheet. The Court below framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 323 IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu, but he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D.1 was marked. After examining oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found the accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506 and 323 IPC and accordingly, acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed this criminal revision case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below without appraising the evidence of P.W.1, victim woman, acquitted the accused from the charges framed against him. This Court perused the entire record and the evidence adduced by the witnesses. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that according to P.W.1, after her raising hue and cry due to the occurrence, L.W.6 - Shankaraiah reached the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident but the said Shankaraiah was not examined and further according to her, she sustained injuries during the attempt made by respondent No.1/accused. But, according to the doctor, there were no such injuries as stated by her. It is a settled proposition that in the case of revision against the acquittal, the appellate Court is vested with the power to reverse the order of the Court below, if there is any apparent illegality on the face of the record or any perversity in the judgment passed by the Court below and further, this Court is not empowered to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court, if it rightly considered the evidence and passed the judgment. If two views are possible and the lower Court considered the view, which is in favour of the accused, there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. On a perusal of the entire evidence and considering the above said proposition, this Court is of the view that by the impugned judgment, the lower Court rightly acquitted respondent No.1/accused and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 21st JUNE, 2010. kvni