THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.27 OF 2006. DATED: 23-07-2010. Between: Pallagani Subba Rao … Petitioner/De facto Complainant and 1.The State rep. by Station House Officer, Veeravalli, Krishna District Rep. by P.P. High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. … Respondent/Complainant 2.Sakiri Subba Rao and four others … Respondents/A1 to A5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.27 OF 2006. ORDER: This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed by the petitioner/de facto complainant against the judgment, dated 14-11-2005 in C.C.No.772 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzivid, Krishna District, in acquitting A1 to A5 of the charges under Sections 148 and 326 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case, may be stated as follows: P.W.1 had Ac.4.00 of land at Mallavalli village and he gifted the same to his grand daughter, but he cultivated the said land. P.W.1 had no way to go to that land and he arranged some stones to go to his land on the vagu along with agricultural implements and tractors through vagu and after completion of work, he used to remove the stones from the canal. The accused obstructed the same. Then P.W.1 filed a suit and obtained injunction orders against the accused. On the intervening night of 17/18-08-2000 at about 00.30 hours, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked P.Ws. 1 and 2 while they were proceeding to their field for watering their land, beat them and caused grievous injuries to P.W.2. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were got admitted in the hospital. On a complaint given by P.W.1, police registered a case and investigated into it and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. 3. Charges under Sections 148 and 326 r/w 34 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court upon consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the de facto complainant preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the trial Court are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-de facto complainant contended that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that they were attacked by the accused and sustained some injuries, that Ex.P8 and P9 would go to show that P.Ws. 1 and 2 sustained injuries, that the trial Court has not placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 on the ground that their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and hence, he prays to convict the accused. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused contended that there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal, that the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 10. While dealing with the order of acquittal, though the appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence, but it will be slow in interfering with the same in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons, ordinary this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17-08-2000 at about 12 mid night, while P.Ws. 1 and 2 were proceeding to their field, the accused who are adjacent land owners beat them, as a result, they sustained injuries. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 sustained some injuries, they were not proved by Exs.P8 and P9-wound certificates issued by the doctor. No doubt, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were also referred to Radiologist. They also filed Ex.P6-X-ray, which would go to show that P.W.2 sustained fracture of 5th meta carpol bone. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 filed a suit against the accused and obtained injunction orders. P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, the presence of P.W.4 at the time of incident was doubted by the trial Court. There is no need for this witness to pass through the lands of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He is closely related to P.Ws. 1 and 2. In the earliest opportunity, he did not say that he was passing through the scene of occurrence. On the other hand, he admitted that after attending cooly work. He returned to village. The presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 have not been stated at the earliest opportunity when P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint with the police. 12. The time of incident is also doubtful because according to the doctor those injuries must have been sustained by P.Ws. 1 and 2 about 4 to 6 hours prior to his examination. That means P.Ws. 1 and 2 might have sustained those injuries at 11 P.M. The specific case of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that they sustained injuries at the hands of the accused at 2.00 A.M. Therefore, appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is not shown to be improper. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming judgment, dated 14-11-2005 in C.C.No.772 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzivid, Krishna District. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:23-07-2010 Hsd