HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1506 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- P.W.1 against the judgment dated 20.05.2004 passed in S.C.No.124 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, acquitting the respondents 2 to 6-accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that there is enmity between P.W.1 and the accused in the village as P.W.1, who is the Sarpanch of the village, initiated proceedings against the accused for removal of encroachments through Gram Panchayat. It is stated that on 31.05.2002 at about 7.30 A.M. when P.Ws.1 to 3 were going to Kakarapalle village, all the accused armed with deadly weapons like sticks, axes and knives attacked them and that A1 beat P.W.1 on his left thigh with a stick causing fracture; A2 beat P.W.1 on his right thigh with a stick and A5 beat on the face of P.W.1 with a stick. When P.Ws.2 and 3 interfered, A-3 beat on the right side fore-head of P.W.2 with an axe causing bleeding injury and A-4 beat him on the left leg knee with a stick. Subsequently, the Sub Inspector of police, Munagapaka Police station, on the basis of a report given by P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No. 26 of 2002 and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 307 of I.P.C. and that the accused were tried for the said offence. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and Ex.X1 and M.Os.1 to 4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision since the State did not prefer any appeal against the said order of acquittal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in not taking into consideration Ex.P6- wound certificate and Ex.P7-X ray of P.W.1. He further submits that the doctors of Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnm i.e., P.Ws.10, 12 and 13, who treated P.W.1, have categorically stated that P.W.1 was admitted into their hospital with fracture of left thigh and that Ex.P7 X-ray was taken and Ex.P6 wound certificate was also issued. He further submits that since there is ample and sufficient evidence more particularly the medical evidence on record, the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused for the offence with which they were charted. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In the instant case, P.W.1 is the Sarpanch of the village. PW.6- doctor, Anakapalle Government hospital, who examined P.W.1 initially, did not give any wound certificate and that he referred P.W.1 to King George hospital, Visakhapatnam. But, curiously P.W.1 was not treated by the doctor at King George hospital. Subsequently, P.W.1 was examined by the doctors i.e., P.Ws.10, 12 and 13 at Seven Hills hospital, Visakhapatnam, which is a private hospital. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the police manipulated the records in this case. Even to accept the evidence of P.Ws.10, 12 and 13, the evidence that has come on record disprove the said evidence. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence available on record, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to produce positive, cogent, reliable and corroborative evidence to sustain the theory of commission of offence by the accused, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against the judgment of acquittal under Sections 397 and 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 Court below has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Here in this case, the finding of the Court below is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the said finding needs no interference. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 03-02-2011 Gsn.