THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.529 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The respondents herein were tried by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gurazala in C.C. No20/2001 for the offence punishable under section 324 and 506 (I) r/w 34 of IPC. Having analyzed the entire evidence the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the first respondent and his son who was arrayed as A.2 in the case are guilty of the said offences and accordingly sentenced the first respondent to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and his son A.2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC, and further sentenced the first respondent to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and his son A.2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 506 (I) of IPC. Questioning the said judgment the first respondent approached the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and filed Criminal Appeal No.525 of 2001 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 08.02.2002 while holding that the respondent is not guilty of the said offences acquitted him of the said offence. The same is questioned in this revision by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.3. 2 Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 16.01.2001 at 1.00 P.M. while P.W.3 was waiting for an auto in Chintalapalli to return to Karempudi, the first respondent and his son (A.2) rushed there, abused him, threatened him and also beat with hands and kicked him down. A.2 beat on the nose of P.W.3 with a stone and caused bleeding injury. In that connection a case in Cr.No.3 of 2001 was registered by Karempudi Police and investigated into and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 The powers of this court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C are very limited. If the appellate court, after re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he was tried, this court normally dos not interfere with the said finding unless the same is not in accordance with evidence adduced by the prosecution. 4 As seen from the entire evidence available on record, and having perused the judgment of the appellate court, this court is also of the view that the evidence of the victim, who was examined as P.W.3, is not supported by any independent witness. P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 who are said to be the eyewitnesses to the incident turned hostile and the sole testimony of the victim is inconsistent on the material aspects as to how he sustained the injury actually. The presence of P.W.6 at the scene of offence also appears doubtful and there are so many discrepancies in his evidence. Admittedly there are civil and criminal cases pending between the parties. Further, the victim himself stated that Ex.P.2 report was drafted by a person at Karempudi police station, but he does not know his name and he has no knowledge about the contents of the said report. 5 Taking the overall situation into consideration this court is of the view that the appellate court is justified in holding that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellate court has discussed the entire evidence in correct perspective and hence I see no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the said findings. 6 Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision and hence the same is dismissed. -------------- 07.06.2010 Kvsn