A criminal revision challenging the acquittal of accused underSections 324 and34IPC. The High Court held that as there was a possibility of two views sustaining the acquittal, the revision was dismissed without interference.
The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal of the accused was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1906 OF 2012
ORDER:
This revision is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant against the judgment dated 26.7.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.55 of 2011 by the Additional & District Sessions Judge, Gudivada acquitting accused-respondents 1 to 3.
Respondents 1 to 3 were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC alleging that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3-accused in connection with boarder of their sites and on 3.5.2007, the accused and the petitioner quarreled with each other about the same and accused No.2 caught hold of injured and beat him with hands and accused No.3 also beat him with hands and accused No.1 picked up cot peg and beat him on head, as a result of which, the de facto complainant sustained bleeding injuries.
During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has given benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and acquitted them for the charges leveled against them. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed the appeal in Crl.A.No.55 of 2011. The lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed the present revision.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments passed by the Courts below are perverse in nature and the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Hence, he prayed to set aside the judgments impugned.
In a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the
Courts below. It is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the 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 same.
Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgments, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Courts below and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
_________________ Justice Raja Elango
Dated: 10.10.2012 Nn.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1906 OF 2012
10.10.2012
Nn.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision against acquittal should be interfered with when the trial court gave benefit of doubt to the accused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
De facto complainant
Accused
Raja Elango
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
