THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1265 OF 2009 20TH AUGUST 2009. BETWEEN: DOMMETI NAGESWARA RAO .. PETITIONER V STATE OF A.P. .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1265 OF 2009 O r d e r: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 5-2-2009 passed in C.C.No.191 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Razole, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate found the accused-Katta Jaya Srinivasarao not guilty for the offence under section 304-A IPC and acquitted him accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is : On 27-5-2006 at about 5.00 p.m. accused drew Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP 5 AP 9623 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed M.Vijaya Laxmi and as a result she sustained injuries for which she succumbed while undergoing treatment in the hospital. P.W.1 K.Srinivas who is a pillion rider of the motor cycle driven by the accused presented a report before the Station House Officer, Nagaram Police Station. P.W.9 Md.Hameeruddin registered a case in Cr.No.38 of 2006 and issued Ex.P.6 FIR. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid before the JMFC, Rajole. Learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.191 of 2006. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing copies of the documents to him the learned Magistrate examined him u/s 251 of Cr.P.C putting the substance of the accusations levelled against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 8 documents. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 304-A IPC and acquitted him by judgment dated 5th February, 2009. Hence, this revision by the husband of the deceased (P.W.3 Dommeti Nageswara Rao). 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and thereby erred in recording acquittal of the accused. 5. It is well settled that in a revision against the acquittal, the revisional court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore liable to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the court below is possible, the revisional court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is erroneous. 6. P.Ws.2 and 3 figured as an eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 has stated in cross-examination that he came to the scene after hearing the sounds from the place of accident. It suggests that he did not witnessed the accident. P.W.3 also stated that at the time of accident he was in his house and that the main road is not visible from his house. When once the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is discarded, there is no other witness who witnessed the occurrence. The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and recorded acquittal of the accused. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal impugned in this revision. 7. In the result, this revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. 20th August, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1265 OF 2009 20TH AUGUST 2009.