THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1194 of 2005 Date: 28.09.2011 Between: Gollapalli Atcharao … Petitioner AND Tiragati Nageswara Rao and 5 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1194 of 2005 ORDER: The de facto complainant is the revision petitioner herein. A.1 to A.5 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada are the respondents 1 to 5 herein. The accused were tried for the offences under Sections 302, 379 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). A.1 was charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC while A.2 to A.5 were charged for the offence u/s.201 IPC. 2. After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered that no case was made out and accordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant, who is PW.1, preferred the present revision. 3. As many as 14 witnesses were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.17 were marked by the prosecution. As many as 13 material objects were marked. MOs.1 & 2 are gold ornaments. 4. Sri K. Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/de facto complainant contended that the recovery of MOs.1 and 2 prima facie established the case against the accused. The learned trial Judge exhaustively dealt with the recovery and has concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery linking the same to the accused. 5. The case of the prosecution may briefly state at this stage. a) The accused are residents of Krishnapuram village. The deceased by name G. Apparao @ Rajababu is also resident of the same village. On the night of 12.06.2003 the deceased left his house after dinner for stroll and did not return home. His body was found on the next day in the coconut tope of one B. Sriramachandra Murthy. b) The deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of A.1. The prosecution alleged that on account of the illicit intimacy between the deceased and his wife, A.1 took the assistance of the remaining accused, had murdered the deceased and threw the dead body in the coconut tope with a view to conceal the evidence and that A.1 thus committed the offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. 6. There was no eyewitness account for the incident proper. The entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence. Barring for alleging that the deceased had illicit intimacy with the wife of A.1, no other evidence could be let in by the prosecution to link the accused to the commission of the offence. As already pointed out, the discrepancy in the recovery of MOs.1 and 2 had been examined, noticed and explained by the trial Court. On an overall estimation of the evidence, the learned trial Judge concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, much less beyond reasonable doubt. There are no circumstances to accept the evidence of prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. The evidence is so loose that it is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The finding of the trial Court that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt does not warrant any interference. The judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any error of law. There are no merits in this revision. 7. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 28.09.2011 Isn