Dismissed

Uppu Venkata Rao, v. The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC23 Nov 2012CRLRC/1634/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal revision challenged the acquittal of the accused. It held that the trial court correctly appreciated evidence and that the scope of revision against acquittal is limited, finding no perversity to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Uppu Venkata Rao, Vs The State o Andhra Pradesh… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1634 OF 2005

¶3

DATED 23^rd NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶4

BETWEEN :

¶5

U.Venkata Rao

¶6

.. Petitioner-P.W.1

¶7

and

¶8

The State of A.P. & others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1634 OF 2005

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Petitioner-P.W.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 05.11.2003 rendered in C.C.No.204 of 2002 whereby the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet, Guntur, acquitted A.1, A.3 to A.5 for an offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and A.2 for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.

¶13

The case of the prosecution, in brief, as seen from the impugned judgment, is that on the alleged date of occurrence all the accused beat P.W.1 with sticks and crowbars and when P.W.2 tried to interfered accused also abused him and beat him. Hence, the case.

¶14

Having perused the entire impugned judgment and also heard the arguments, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and after assigning proper reasons acquitted the accused.

¶15

Further, in a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the

¶16

face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

¶17

Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge.

¶18

Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 23^rd November, 2012. sur

Uppu Venkata Rao, v. The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppu Venkata Rao, v. The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Kumure Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Ramesh Kumar Asawa Vs M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor

Kotbi Komutsish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

Ballem Venkateswarlu, Vs State of A.P.