IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1184 of 2010 DATE:05.07.2010 Between: B.Sekhara Reddy …… Petitioner/Defacto-complainant And: B.Damodara Reddy and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1184 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/defacto-complainant/P.W-1 seeks to file this revision petition against Judgment of acquittal passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupathi in C.C. No.512 of 2005. Since as per Section 401(3) Cr.P.C, no finding of acquittal can be altered to one of conviction by this Court in a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C, the petitioner sought for fresh investigation of the case by remitting the case back to the police for that purpose on the ground that P.Ws 5 and 6 who are head constable and Sub-Inspector of Police conducted investigation in lackadaisical manner as the accused/1st respondent happened to be a police constable. On reading of the entire revision petition and on hearing of arguments of the petitioner in-person, main grievance of the petitioner is against P.Ws 5 and 6. The offence for which the 1st respondent was tried in the lower Court is one punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. 2) As per prosecution case, the offence took place on 01.08.2005 at about 8.30 P.M. According to the petitioner, he lost consciousness after he received blow from the accused on junction of his right shoulder and neck and after regaining consciousness, he was admitted in Sri Venkateswara Ram Narain Ruia Government General Hospital, Tirupathi to which place P.W-5 head constable came and recorded his statement as per Ex.P-1. Though Ex.P-1 was recorded on next day of the offence when P.W-1 was taking treatment in hospital, the police did not register the same as crime and did not issue printed F.I.R to the Court. Ex.P-5 F.I.R in Crime No.214/2005 of Tirupathi East Police Station was issued on 25.10.2005 after P.W-1 is stated to have addressed letter to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, marking copies thereof to several higher officials in the Government and in the police department at Hyderabad. Therefore, the petitioner contends that though Ex.P-1 report was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C on the next date of offence, the police issued F.I.R under Section 157 Cr.P.C. after 2 months 23 days of receipt of Ex.P-1 report. The lower Court noted that there is discrepancy in place of the offence between Ex.P-1 report of P.W-1 and P.Ws-1’s evidence in the Court. The petitioner throws blame on P.W-5 for recording Ex.P-1 report/statement from him in a faulty manner. In case P.W-5 recorded Ex.P-1 statement/report from P.W-1 in faulty manner and in the manner in which it was not stated by P.W-1, then nothing prevented P.W-1 from refusing to sign on Ex.P-1. When the Station House Officer did not take any action by way of not registering case after recording Ex.P-1 from him, then the petitioner should have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. When the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police did not take immediate action, nothing prevented P.W-1 to file private complaint against the accused before the Magistrate. In case a private complaint is filed, then the petitioner becomes master of his criminal litigation and he could have controlled the proceedings and he could have taken the proceedings in a right direction of his choice and to his satisfaction. Instead, the petitioner is stated to have resorted to petitions to the A.P.State Human Rights Commission and to higher officers in the state head quarters. No copies of such petitions are produced in the lower Court. Having subscribed his signature to Ex.P-1, now after the case ended in acquittal in the lower Court, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that P.W-5 recorded Ex.P-1 in a faulty manner to save a fellow policeman. 3) Scope of trial in a calendar case instituted by way of final report of a police officer is limited to prosecution of evidence collected during investigation, by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The lower Court cannot make a roaming enquiry into background of the case and into facts which did not come to light during investigation and which were not presented in Court during trial by the prosecution. The Court has to follow procedure prescribed by Cr.P.C and having regard to giving reasonable opportunity to the accused to defend him effectively. Nothing prevented P.W-1 to engage an advocate in the lower Court to assist the prosecution and take steps through prosecution for sending for petitions sent by him to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission and others. Nothing prevented P.W-1 to file his medical record in the lower Court through the Assistant Public Prosecutor. P.W-1 was having only abrasion on right collar bone of about 2 cm X 1 cm, as per Ex.P-3 wound certificate and evidence of the medical officer P.W-4. 4) Even though the accused happened to be a police constable, he is no other than step brother of P.W-1. According to P.W-1, the accused beat him with a wooden pestle when P.W-1 was standing in front of house of the accused. The weapon alleged in this case is not a lethal weapon, but a blunt object. In Ex.P-1 the weapon was described as stick and not pestle. P.W-1 in cross-examination admits that the place of offence is a residential area and he does not know names of persons who witnessed the offence. P.W-2 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W-3 is a resident of Andhra Bank Colony, Avilala, Tirupathi rural where P.W-1 resides. He is not a resident of Railway Colony extention where the accused resides and where the incident is stated to have taken place. P.W-1 is maternal uncle of P.W-3. Since he is closely related to P.W-1 and since he has no house near the scene of offence and since P.W-3 resides near P.W-1’s house, the lower Court rightly did not place any reliance on P.W-3’s evidence. Thus, on perusal of entire record I see absolutely no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the lower Court. There are no merits in this revision petition. 5) Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 5, 2010 KSH