THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRl.R.C.No.449 of 2010 and Crl.A.No.1439 of 2010 and Crl.A. (SR).No.2520 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT In view of the commonness in all these cases, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Crl.R.C.No.449 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner/injured and Crl.A.No.1439 of 2010 is filed by the appellant-State against the judgment, dated 27.04.2009, passed in S.C.No.298 of 2007 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. Crl.A.(SR).No.2520 of 2010 is filed by the appellant- State against the judgment, dated 27.04.2009, passed in C.C.No.88 of 2007 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum- Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: In Gram Panchayat elections for the year 2006, the wife of one Katari Chakradhararao was elected as Sarpanch on behalf of the Congress party, whereas the wife of A2 was defeated in her hands. Since then, all the accused bore grudge against the de facto complainant-P.W.2 and waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance and also to do away with their lives. On 31.12.2006 at about 11.45 PM, all the accused in furtherance of their common object, armed with deadly weapons i.e., knives, pestles, sticks, stones and chilly powder, criminally trespassed into the house of Chakradhara Rao at Komaragiri village. A1 beat P.W.2 with pestle on his right hand, A5 and A6 sprinkled chilly power over P.Ws.2 to 6 and beat them with sticks. A2 hacked with a knife over the head of P.W.3, A3 beat P.W.5 with a pestle on his head, A4 beat P.W.6 with a stick on his head. At the intervention of the elders, they were rescued from the clutches of the accused. On the basis of the report given by P.W.2, a case in Cr.No.1 of 2007 was registered against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. It is stated that during the course of the said galata, the prosecution witnesses also beat the accused. Therefore, A1 gave a report against P.W.2 and others and the same was registered as Crime No.2 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The police after investigation filed the charge sheets against them and the case filed by P.W.2 was taken on file as S.C.No.298 of 2007, whereas the case filed by A1 was taken on file as C.C.No.88 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. 5. During the course of trial in S.C.No.298 of 2007, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked on behalf of the prosecution and M.Os.1 to 7 were also marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. 6. During the course of trial in C.C.No.88 of 2007, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.D1 to D12 were marked on behalf of the defence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge having analysed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that there were case and counter cases between the accused and the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish as to who are the aggressors and thus, while extending the benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused in both the cases for the offences with which they were charged. Questioning the said acquittal, the State filed the appeals and the de facto complainant- P.W.2 filed the criminal revision case. 8. It appears that there was an altercation between the accused and the prosecution witnesses and both of them received injuries. It is true that the doctors examined the prosecution witnesses and issued wound certificates to them. In the very same incident, the accused also received injuries, but the prosecution did not explain the same by leading cogent evidence. Apparently, there was enmity between two groups with regard to the Sarpanch elections held on 02.08.2006 and in that context, an altercation took place and both parties have received injuries, but, it is for the prosecution to establish as to who are the aggressors. In those circumstances, the trial Court recorded acquittal of the accused in both the cases. Hence, I see no merits in the revision and the appeals. Accordingly, the revision and the appeals are dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date.15.12.2010 sj