S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE de facto complainant, petitioner herein, files this criminal revision case against the judgment in C. C. No. 216 of 1999 dated 28-2-2001 on the ground of perversity and miscarriage of justiceand for disbelieving the ocular evidence, which is supported by medical evidence and other witnesses.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that there is material to show that the incident took place and the sme is corroborated by P. W. 2, who was a farm servant, and also supported by medical evidence. He contends that the judgment of the Court below is perverse and the findings are to be set aside.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the accused, who are respondents 1 to 3 contends that the versions are not supported by medical evidence and P. W. 2 is only farm servant who is interested in P. W. 1 and the incident has never happened. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the father and brother of P. W. 1 are not examined in respect of the incident that took place at the photo studio.

( 4 ) THIS revision is preferred invoking Section 401 Cr. P. C. The Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A. P. , AIR 1962 SC 1788 has categoric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document