IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.757 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Motha Venkateswhar Rao S/o. Chandra Rao …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.757 of 2010 ORDER: The de facto complainant / PW-1 seeks to file revision case against the acquittal recorded by the Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajahmundry in SC ST Case No.11 of 2008. 2. Under Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C., the High Court is precluded by law to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while deciding a revision petition. It is stated that the State did not file any appeal against acquittal passed by the lower Court. 3. This case pertains to a dispute, which occurred at Nedunuru at the time of an installation function in Sri Kanakadurga Chenna Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam. The petitioner was the Chairman of Trust Board of that temple. It is alleged that questioning propriety of the petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste to take up installation function, the offence took place. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A-1 only, deleting A-2 to A-10 from the case. During the course of trial in the trial Court, A-2 to A-10 were impleaded, perhaps, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on application of the Additional Public Prosecutor. During trial of the case in the lower Court, PWs-1 to 5 were examined to speak to the offence. Other witnesses are formal and official witnesses. Out of PWs-1 to 5, except PW-5, who is the Sarpanch, others belong to same caste as that of the petitioner. Name of A-1 was not at all mentioned in FIR as the person who abused the petitioner (PW-1) in the name of his caste, even though A-1 is a person belonging to the same village. PW-5 did not speak to details of the utterances and more particularly about any of the accused beating petitioner. 4. Charges were framed by the lower Court against A-1 to A-10 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is no medical evidence to prove offence under Section 323 IPC. The lower Court considered evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and found glaring omissions in FIR, contradictions from among their evidence and also developments during their evidence from their statements given to the police. No independent witnesses like poojaris or workers or other devotees in the temple at the time of offence were examined. 5. Having regard to detailed scanning of oral evidence made by the lower Court, this Court is of the opinion that the lower Court considered the evidence on record in right direction and came to correct conclusion against the prosecution. This Court does not find any reasons much less valid or legal reasons to come to a different conclusion in this revision. 6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU June 21, 2010 KTL