IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2006. Between : Smt. Bhagyalakshmi Panigrahi … Appellant V/s. Balupanigrahi & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: Sri J. Kurma Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Addl.Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2006 JUDGMENT : This is an appeal from the Judgment of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, in CC.No. 103 of 2002, dated 07-10-2003. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the Accused before the learned Magistrate. They were tried for the offences under Section 323 and 506 of IPC and were acquitted of the said offences by the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, the defacto complainant filed the present criminal appeal. 3. Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri J. Kurma Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 4. It was the case of the prosecution that PW-1 the defacto complainant is the sister of PW-2. One Dwarkadas Bavaji, who is the principal Archaka of Sri Jagannadhaswamy temple is the adoptive father of PW-1. Admittedly, there were some disputes between PWs 1 and 2 and the respondents 1 and 2 regarding cultivation of temple lands. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 23-06-2001 when a procession of Jagannadhaswamy was being taken as per the tradition of the temple. It is stated that while PWs 1 and 2 were participating in the procession, the respondents 1 and 2 obstructed and that they also pulled the saree of PW-1. Initially a report was lodged with the police. As the police did not take any action they filed the complaint before the Magistrate. In fact the complaint averments show that an offence punishable under section 354 of IPC was committed but after recording the sworn statement of PW- 1, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case only for the offences under sections 323 and 506 of IPC. 5. During the course of trial, however, the learned Magistrate considering the enmity between the parties in regard to the cultivation of the temple land and also considering the fact that no injuries have been found on the person of PWs 1 and 2 and the discrepancies and inconsistencies in regard to the happening of the incident and also further considering the evidence of DW-1, who stated that there was police force at the time of procession and no such incident took place, acquitted the respondents 1 and 2 for the offences under section 323 and 506 of IPC. To reach the conclusion that no offence in fact had been committed, the learned trial Court thoroughly scrutnised the evidence on record considered the probabilities and ultimately recorded an order of acquittal. The conclusion reached by the trial Court not being perverse and not being contrary to the evidence on record and the settled principles relating appreciation of evidence, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is confirmed and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO 10/08/2011. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R . KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2006 Circulation No. 09 Date:10-08-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43