APHC010318942008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1721/2008 Between: 1. J.ALIVELAMMA, W/O MALLAIAH, HOUSEWIFE R/O LINGARAJU AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, JALADANTHI MANDAL, NELLORE DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GURRAM SUBBA RAO 3 OTHERS, S/O CHIMPIRAIAH, R/O L.R.AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, JALADANKI MANDAL, NELLORE DIST. 2. GURRAM PRAVEEN, S/O CHINA ABBAIAH, R/O L.R.AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, JALADANKI MANDAL, NELLORE DIST. 3. GURRAM RAGHURAM, S/O PEDDA ABBAIAH @ VENKATESWARLU, R/O L.R.AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, JALADANKI MANDAL, NELLORE DIST. 4. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment dated 05.09.08 in C.C.No.417 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, Nellore Dist. 2 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1721 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ 2. - The Court made the following: 3 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1721 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1721/2008 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.417 of 2004. 2. The brief facts of the case: Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are arraigned as accused and charged under section 427, 355, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. with an allegation that LW1 gave her diesel engine Jet for rent per day for Rs.200/- to A1. A1 to A3 used kerosene in the engine instead of diesel due to that engine was damaged. LW1 asked A1 why he used kerosene instead of diesel but the accused did not reply. LW1 and 3 informed the matter to villagers. Under such enmity it has been alleged that on 15.02.2004 while LW1 was going to get milk, accused persons obstructed her way abused her beat her with chappals on her head and hands. On that LW1 feared and ran away and the matter was reported to police on 19.02.2004. 3. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses and after hearing arguments the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons. Order of acquittal is under challenge before this Court. 4 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1721 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and improper. The learned Trial Court should have passed order of conviction as prosecution has sufficiently proved the case by the evidences of PW1, PW3 and PW5. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the entire facts and circumstances this case so there is miscarriage of justice. So that he prayed for necessary orders to remand the matter back. Submission of the learned counsel for unofficial respondent: 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the Trial Court has committed no error. The witnesses and PWs are not corroborative but they are inconsistent. Moreover the person of PW1 is inconsistent to the prosecution case, thereby the learned Trial Court has no other option but to pass the order of acquittal. Submission of Assistant Public Prosecutor: 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that though the evidence of PW1 was corroborated by PW3, but they are husband and 5 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1721 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 wife. There are no eye witnesses. PW2, who was cited as eye witness, he did not support the prosecution. PW5, Investigation Officer evidence is not corroborative to PW1. PW4, Doctor clearly stated that the abrasion appearing in the left elbow joint cannot occur on alleged incident. He further submits that there is delay of four days. Explanation of delay is not properly done. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Observation of the Court: 8. It appears that there are five witnesses on behalf of prosecution to prove the charge under section 427, 355, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution witnesses does not supported the PW1, who is the defacto- complainant. Her version contradicted to her chief as well as cross- examination. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 is not supported by PW4. PW3 is the husband of PW1 accordingly they are the interested witnesses. The value of corroboration cannot be stated to be fit to the prosecution case. PW2 was sighted as eye witness. He did not support prosecution case. The fact suggested that the matter was referred to the villagers. No villagers were sighted as witnesses. In this case, I find no justification to entertain the petitioner the order of acquittal appears to be justified. 6 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1721 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 9. Thus, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merit. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 08.04.2026 PBS 7 SS, J Crl.R.C.No.1721 of 2008 Dated 08.04.2026 290 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1721 of 2008 Date: 08.04.2026 PBS