HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.173 of 2009 Date: 11th November, 2011 Between: Simhadri Nageshwar Rao, S/o Raghavaiah, 65 years, Driver, R/o Bandalaya Cheruvu, Avanigadda Mandal, W.G. District. ..Petitioner-Defacto complainant And 1.Simhadri Ramesh, S/o Venkateswara Rao and 3 others. ..Respondents-A-1 to A-3 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.173 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal revision case is preferred by the defacto complainant-P.W.1 against the judgment dated 19.12.2007 passed in C.C.No.425 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda, acquitting the respondents-A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.06.2005 at about 7.30 P.M. when P.W.1 was returning to Bandalicheruvu along with his son - P.W.2 on a motor-cycle, the accused stopped the vehicle of P.W.1 and beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks causing bleeding injuries. On a complaint given by P.W.1 to police, a case in Crime No.68 of 2005 was registered and investigated into and the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence on record and as the revision petitioner-P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and as P.W.1 failed to identify the persons who beat him, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is legal and sustainable? POINT:: Evidently, the complaint was given at the instance of the revision petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1 and he gave the narration of events in his evidence as to how he was beaten. But when the matter came up for cross-examination, he stated that he was deposing for the first time before the Court that A-1 parked his motor-cycle and beat him causing injuries. He also stated that he has attributed overt acts against A-3 for the first time before the Court and he did not state before police that A-1 beat him on his left rear dorsal side of palm and A-2 beat him on his left knee cap causing bleeding injury. He further stated that he has not seen any of the accused at the time of incident as he received injuries on his backside of head. He further stated that he couldn’t tell who beat him due to dark night. P.W.2 is also one of the injured and he did not support the prosecution case and was declared as hostile. The evidence of the revision petitioner-P.W.1 is inconsistent and the overt acts attributed by him and the identification of the accused appears to be doubtful. In view of the above circumstances, the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be irregular and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed. __________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO 11-11-2011 Gsn.