THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1974 of 2004 JUDGMENT: After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners herein and others in Crime No.60 of 1999 of Kotananduru Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, took cognizance of the said offence and it was numbered as C.C.No.47 of 2000. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 23.10.2003, sentenced the petitioners herein, who are A- 1, A-2 and A-5 respectively, to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioners herein-accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 and other accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.247 of 2003 and the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, vide judgment dated 29.06.2004, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - A-2 was the erstwhile Sarpanch. He had committed some irregularities and the panchayat officer, Tuni had conducted enquiry. Due to political differences, it was suspected that P.W- 3 was the person who initiated the enquiry. On 14.12.1999, in a meeting at about 9.30 pm., at Ramaalayam, all the accused came with sticks and stones and attempted to beat P.W-3 and when P.Ws.1 and 2 intervened, injuries were caused to them also. On the report given by P.W-1, a case was registered and that after investigation, the charge sheet was filed. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a delay of more than 12 hours in lodging the FIR; that the prosecution failed to attribute any motive to the accused in inflicting injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2 and as such, prayed, to set aside the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said submissions and contended that both the Courts below had appreciated the evidence on record from a right perspective and imposed the fine on the accused, which needs no interference by this Court. Having heard the said submissions, this Court perused the record, form which it is evident that both the Courts below had appreciated the evidence let in by the prosecution in a right perspective and has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused. Hence, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th January 2011 DR