THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1650 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner who was examined as P.W.2, the Station House Officer, Anakapalle Town Police Station, registered a case against the respondents 1 to 3 herein for the offences punishable under sections 447, 506, 324 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.307 of 1997. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The trial court by its judgment dated 09.07.2004 having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Questioning the said judgment acquitting the accused, though the State has not chosen to file any appeal, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.2 in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.6.1997 at 9.00 AM the respondents 1 to 3 armed with sickles and sticks trespassed into the land of P.W.1 which is situated near bye pass road of Anakapalle and beat P.W.1 indiscriminately and caused injuries to him and then P.W.1 ran away. Meanwhile P.W.2 i.e. petitioner herein interfered and then the respondents 1 to 3 beat him also with sticks and sickles and caused injuries to him also. In that connection a case in Cr.No.186 of 1997 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the considered view that the trial court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondents of the said charges. Admittedly there is no other evidence except the evidence of the interested witnesses to record conviction against the respondents. Hence the finding arrived at by the trial court that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against an order of acquittal under sections 397 & 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 lower court has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. That too, even if the court below commits any error apparent, this court, at best, can remand the matter to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether different finding. Here in this case, the finding of the court below is based on sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, and hence, the said finding needs no interference. 5 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. --------------- 17.02.2011 Kvsn