ORDER :

On allegation of an offence against human body, State led the prosecution as against five accused for a charge under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and by a judgment dated 28.07.2008 in C.C.No.395 of 2004 the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri found all the accused not guilty and acquitted them. State was content with the decision. However, the victim/Mr. S.Srinivasa Rao/PW.1 has come up in this revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. and assails the incorrectness of the judgment of the learned trial Court.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in this revision are the accused who were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court. In this revision notices were sent to them and a learned counsel made appearance on their behalf. However, as during the subsequent days there was no representation on their behalf, this Court initiated process as against respondent Nos.1 to 5 once again and notices were served. However, none made appearance on their behalf.

3. Respondent No.6 in this revision is the State and is represented by learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments.

5. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the trial Court misread the evidence which resulted in manifest injustice requiring correction in this revision?

6. Point:

Before considering the contentions raised in this revision, the facts leading to filing of this revision are required to be noticed.

7. The admitted case as seen from the record is that all the five accused are related to one another and they belong to a large family. The victim/PW.1 and the witnesses to the fact are related to one another and belong to one family. Earlier to the present case mentioned crime incident, between these two families, there were disputes and there were pending civil cases between them. In addition to the civil litigation a criminal case filed by A.4 as against PW.1 and others was already pending. It was in the backdrop of such available facts and circumstances this case arose. Accused were charged for causing simple hurt to PW.1 for an incident that occurred at 7:15 A.M. on 15.10.2004 at a place called Lam and in the front yard of the house of PW.1. A week days earlier to it and precisely on 09.10.2004 during night time at 11:00 P.M., it was alleged that the same set of accused found PW.1 alone on road coming on a motorcycle and they attacked him and caused injuries. With reference to that incident on 09.10.2004 no information was lodged with the police and no investigation was done and no complaint was filed and no prosecution was taken out. However, legal machinery was moved only when the same set of accused once again attacked PW.1 on 15.10.2004.

8. Prosecution allegation was that these five accused came to the house of PW.1 and using a chutney pounder they beat him all over the body and A.4 also sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes of victim/PW.1. Though this incident occurred in the morning at 7:15 A.M. the victim chose to lodge a written information with police at 10:00 P.M. in the night. That written information was registered as Crime No.155 of 2004. The victim was forwarded to Government General Hospital, Guntur where he was examined by the doctor/PW.6. The doctor examined the victim and issued Ex.P.4-wound certificate and gave evidence at the trial stating that he did not notice any external injuries, but he found patient complaining of pain on the left shoulder and left leg. He opined that the injuries were simple in nature and were aged about 3 to 4 hours earlier to his examination. He also replied to the defence question and stated that the injuries he noticed could also have possibly occurred had PW.1 fell down on any hard surface. Victim explained the way the offence occurred. His parents testified as PWs.2 and 3 and sister of PW.2 testified as PW.4. Another agriculturist testified as PW.5. Investigating officer gave evidence as PW.7.

9. After considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 7