HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.880 OF 2010 DATE: 22.06.2010 Between: Mutyala Venkateswarulu …… Petitioner. And: The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P., and 3 others. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.880 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is sought to be filed by father of the deceased who is the defacto-complainant/P.W.1 against acquittal recorded by the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Guntur by judgment dated 22.07.2009 in Sessions Case No.334 of 2008. The respondents 2 to 4 are A-1 to A-3 in the lower court. Under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C, the High Court has no authority to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while disposing of a revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even though acquittal may not be converted into one of conviction in a revision petition, this Court has got power of remand to the lower court in appropriate cases. Remand of a case is known to civil law and is not known to criminal law. Remand in criminal law means sending an accused person to remand either under Section 167 or under Section 209 Cr.P.C. It is only the appellate court which can order retrial of a criminal case. Be that as it may, let me consider evidence on record. During trial in the lower court, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.24 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked for prosecution. The lower court thoroughly scrutinised evidence of all the witnesses. The alleged eye witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 turned hostile to the prosecution. So the entire case depends on circumstantial evidence. Except P.W.1, no other person spoke any incriminating circumstances against any of the accused. Even P.W.1’s evidence is to the limited extent of the accused taking the deceased along with them on 26.11.2007 and the deceased not turning up later. This solitary testimony of P.W.1 even if accepted for the sake of argument, will not drive any court much less this Court to record conviction against A-1 to A-3. Ultimately it is only a question of appreciation of evidence. This Court is of the opinion that the trial court did appreciate the prosecution evidence in the proper way and came to a right conclusion in favour of the accused and acquitted A-1 to A-3. Hence, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:22.06.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.880 OF 2010 Date:22.06.2010 Gk.