THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1572 OF 2004 ORDER: This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner – de facto complainant Kodali Sri Gowri against the judgment of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur, in Crl.A.No.124 of 2002 dated 18.06.2004, under which the learned Judge while allowing the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in C.C.No.91 of 2001 dated 26.08.2004 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur. There were 18 accused before the learned Magistrate. 2. Heard. 3. It was alleged that P.Ws.1 to 4 and all the accused are residents of Kannaigudem, H/o.Mogaltur village. There were disputes between P.Ws.2 and 3 and father of P.W.1 on one hand and all the accused on the other hand with regard to certain properties. On 26.10.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused came to the house of P.W.1 abused P.W.2 touching his caste, dragged P.W.1 to the heap of stones and started beating P.W.2. P.W.1 reached P.W.2 and raised cries at that time A-1, A-7 and A- 8 came to P.W.1 and A-7 caught hold of her tuft of hair and asked her to give documents relating to the case filed by P.W.2. But she refused to do so. On that A-8 instigated A-1 and A-7 to beat P.W.1. A-1 took wooden flank and hit on her head resulting in bleeding injury, P.W.1 fell down to ground. A-1 to A-8 beat P.Ws.2 and 3 and abused them in filthy language, thereafter P.Ws.1 to 3 went to police station, where the statement of P.W.1 was recorded, on the basis of which a case in Cr.No.121 of 2000 was registered under Sec.324 read with 34 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Magistrate found only A-1 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for one year. 4. Against the same, A-1 filed the appeal and the learned Appellate Judge allowed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant has filed this revision. 5. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision? 6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured witnesses. P.W.1 lodged a report Ex.P1 to police. In her evidence P.W.1 admitted that she signed on a blank paper as directed by P.W.7, the Police Officer and she deposed that P.W.7 informed her that complaint would be prepared and directed her to sign on blank white paper, she said that she gave details of incident to P.W.7, who asked her to sign on blank paper. Thus, the contents of Ex.P1 were prepared by P.W.7. The learned appellate Judge held that there is no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 the eyewitnesses, as such, the prosecution is not inspiring confidence and acquitted the present respondent also. 7. The single circumstance of P.W.1 signing on a white paper for preparation of complaint is sufficient to throw away the prosecution case. Added to that there is no consistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. As such, the trial Judge has rightly acquitted the petitioner and it is not a case for interference at the stage of appeal against acquittal. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24th June 2010, Rns