THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.961 OF 2005 DATED 1st OCTOBER, 2010. Between : R.Venkateswarlu Reddy ..Petitioner-Accused and The State of A.P. & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.961 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner-De facto complainant being aggrieved by the judgment, dated 04.04.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2001 by the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, wherein the learned Magistrate acquitted respondents 2 to 6 herein for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that keeping in mind the property disputes between the accused and the de facto complainant, on 05.06.2001 at 11.00 a.m. A.5 picked up a quarrel with the complainant and beat him with hands. In the meanwhile, all the accused armed with sticks and iron rods, trespassed into the house of the complainant where A.1 to A.3 beat him with sticks and A.4 beat the son-in-law of the complainant and caused them bleeding injuries. On receipt of written report from the complainant, Police registered a case in crime No.42 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of entire investigation and receiving necessary reports, Police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4. When charge under Section 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed, read over and explained to A.1 to A.4 in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material read over to them, which is available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. In their defence, accused got examined DW.1 but marked no exhibits. After careful examination of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate acquitted all the accused under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the charge levelled against them. Challenging the same, this revision has been preferred by the de facto complainant. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused without considering the evidence led by the Prosecution and the trial Court judgment suffers with perversity and infirmity. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment. This Court perused the entire material on record. It is seen that the learned trial Judge has considered all the facts and also the evidence adduced by the Prosecution. In a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the trial Court. It is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is binding towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 01.10.2010 sur