JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - Since these Revisions are preferred by the de-facto-complainant against the very same Accused Nos., 1 and 2, relating to the same incident and as the issue involved in these Criminal revision cases are one and the same, these matters are taken up together, for disposal, by this Common Order.

2. Crl.R.C.No.1125 of 2009 is preferred by the de-facto complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.04.2009in C.C.No.01/2008, on the file of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (for short "trial Court"), wherein, Accused Nos., 1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 448, 324 and 509 of the IPC.

3. Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2009 is preferred by the de-facto complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.04.2009in S.C.No.60 of 2008, on the file of the trial Court, wherein, Accused Nos., 1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 448, 324 and 354 of the IPC.

4. The petitioner herein is de-facto complainant and the Respondent Nos., 2 and 3 herein are accused before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of prosecution case is that, on 19/8/2007, at about 9.30 PM, Accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the house of petitioner, dragged her into street, abused her and her husband in filthy language. They also assaulted husband of de-facto-complainant viz., Baburao by means of stick, inflicted injury with blade, when he tried to pacify the issue. Basing on the report given by complainant, on the next day i.e., on 20/8/2007 at about 2.30 PM, SI of Police, Gara P.S. having received medical intimation, registered crime No.74 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Ss. 448, 354, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sec. 448, 509, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC.

6. During the examination under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The same complainant in C.C.No.1 of 2008, who is petitioner herein, filed a private complaint against the same accused herein, before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and another witness, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Ss. 354, 448 and 323 r/w. 34 of IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. In turn, learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam registered it as S.C.No.60 of 2008 and made over the same to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for disposal.

7. As narrated above, C.C.No.01 of 2008 is based on police report and P.R.C.No.54 of 2007 i.e., S.C.No.60 of 2008 is based on a private complaint. On the request made by both the counsel, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, recorded the evidence in S.C.No.60 of 2008 for the purpose of C.C.01 of 2008 also. On appearance of accused before the Assistant Sessions Judge, accused Nos. 1 and 2 abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

8. P.Ws. 1 to 6 were the witnesses examined, Exs. P1 to P7 were the documents marked, apart from M.Os. 1 and 2 material objects placed before the trial Judge. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were the witnesses examined, contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 is marked as Ex.D1.

9. After hearing both counsel, on appreciation of evidence on record, learned trial Judge found A1 and A2 not guilty for the offences charged and acquitted them.

10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments of acquittal passed in favour of accused, defacto-complainant preferred these revisions. In fact, both are on case against accused Nos.1 and 2 based on the complaint given by de-facto-Complainant to the effect that, on a particular day and time, A-1 and A-2 trespassed into their house, dragged her into the road, abused her and assaulted her husband and beat him. Hen