APHC010175512007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1038/2007 Between: 1. VADDI NARAYANA RAO, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, ASST. PROFESSOR, FORENCSI SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BUSI RAMA KRISHNA A2, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, ASST. PROFESSOR, FORENCSI SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. MATTA SUDERSHANA RAO A3, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, ASST. PROFESSOR, FORENCSI SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADES REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Memorandum of Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the judgment in C.C.No.168 of 2001, dt. 25-10-2004 on the file of the Court of the Asst. J.F.C.M., Razole, East Godavari District. IA NO: 1 OF 2006(CRLRCMP 275 OF 2006 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 368 of days in filing the Crl.R.C., /06 before this Hon'ble court. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 42219 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. C SHARAN REDDY 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) O R D E R: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 8Cr.P.C.9), by the petitioner/complainant challenging the Judgment dated 25.10.2004 passed in C.C.No.168 of 2001, on the file of the learned Assistant Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole, East Godavari District (for short, 8the trial Court9), whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.1 & 2/A2 to A3, for the offences punishable under Sections 435 r/w 109 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/A2 and A3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State. 3. The instant case of the prosecution is that the respondent Nos.2 and 3/A2 and A3 along with A1 were charged with offence punishable under Section 435 r/w 109 of I.P.C. The charge sheet contended brief facts of the prosecution is as follows: There are some disputes between the defacto complainant-P.W-1 and accused persons. It has been alleged that the accused persons made threatening calls through public telephone booth on 23.05.2001, the accused persons set fire to the heap of paddy belongs to P.W-1 in Chintalapalli at about 01:30 am. The case was started on the report of V.A.O. During trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and some documents were exhibited by the prosecution. Some statements of witnesses recorded by the police during investigation was also marked on behalf of the defence during trail. The learned trial Court after receiving the evidence and after hearing both sides found respondent Nos.1 and 2/A2 and A3 to be not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 430 r/w 501 of I.P.C. and they were acquitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate has committed error in acquitting the accused persons. There are several witnesses to hold that the accused persons have committed the offence. P.W- 2 and P.W-3 specifically supported the prosecution case but the learned Magistrate has only acquitted the accused person on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged by a delay of fifteen hours. He submits that P.W-1 was residing at Visakhapatnam which is about 350 kms away from the place of offence. Soon after receiving the information from V.A.O., the P.W-1 has reported the matter to the Police. The delay is not curtail for the prosecution9s case but the learned Magistrate has disbelieved the independent witnesses there by there is miscarriage of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/A2 and A3 submits that P.W-1 is the defacto complainant, P.W-2 is wife of defacto complainant and P.W-3 is also interested witness. He further submits that the evidence of P.W-3 cannot be believed as he never stated the name of the accused person and their presence at the time of alleged incident in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has justifiably scanned evidences and acquitted respondents finding no evidence against them. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submits that there are several discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. The evidence cannot be believed. It has been further stated that the respondent No.2/A3 has expired during the course of pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case, status report has been called from the Station House Officer concerned, is also placed on record. 7. It appears that the defacto complainant has categorically admitted that there is enmity between the P.W-1 and other accused persons. P.W-2 is the wife of the P.W-1 and P.W-3 is said to be an eye witness of the incident. Admittedly P.W-3 was aged about 70 years at the time of alleged incident. Moreover, the incident happened at 01:30 am i.e., in the midnight. The learned Magistrate at Para No.9 of the impugned order has specifically noted the statement of P.W-3. Learned trial Court it has been taken note that P.W-3 never stated that he has seen accused No.2 setting fire to the heap of paddy. Moreover during cross examination, he stated that he cannot say, who actually set fire to the heap of paddy. During cross examination the statement of P.W-3 recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was marked as exhibit. After careful perusal of Para No.9 of the impugned order regarding evidencing value of P.W-3, it appears that learned Magistrate has justifiably scanned evidence of P.W-3 and hold that evidence of P.W-3 cannot be believed. Moreover, presence of L.W-8 in the scene of offence was stated by P.W-1 but such L.W-8 was not examined. 8. The learned Magistrate has taken adverse inference under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act. Moreover, the evidence of V.A.O. as well as the evidence of P.W-6 regarding the presence of burnt heap of paddy is disputed. The V.A.O. i.e., the mediator stated that the heap of the paddy was in middle of the field, while P.W-6 stated that burnt heap of paddy was on the side of the road in the field of P.W-1. 9. Considering entire aspect, this Court is of considered view that learned Magistrate has justifiably recorded his findings regarding the value of witnesses of prosecution. In my view there is no illegality and irregularity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.168 of 2001, on the file of the learned Assistant Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole, East Godavari District. Hence, this Court finds there are no merits in the instant Criminal Revision Case. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 18.03.2026 M K K 285 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1038 of 2007 Date: 18.03.2026 M K K