THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.949 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner the Station House Officer II Town Police Station, Karimnagar registered a case against the second respondent herein for the offences punishable under sections 326 and 341 of IPC and after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.879 of 2000. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. However, on behalf of the defence, though no oral evidence was adduced, Ex.D.1 was marked. The trial court having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent for the alleged offences and accordingly by its judgment dated 28.08.2003 acquitted him of the said charges. Questioning the said judgment, though the State has not chosen to file any appeal, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.05.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. when the petitioner was returning home on his scooter from the house of his uncle, the 2nd respondent / accused who bore grudge and enmity with him, attacked him and beat him with stones causing him injuries below left eye, left hand and little finger and also fisted and kicked him. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the considered view that the trial court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused of the said charges. Admittedly there is no other evidence except the evidence of the interested witnesses to record conviction against the second respondent. Hence the finding arrived at by the trial court that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against an order of acquittal under sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, under which the scope and jurisdiction of this court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this court in rarest of rare cases when the lower court has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. That too, even if the court below commits any error apparent, this court, at best, can remand the matter the matter to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether finding. Here in this case, the finding of the court below is based on sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, and hence, the said finding needs no interference. 5 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn