The High Court's power to set aside an acquittal is limited to exceptional cases with glaring defects or manifest errors, as established in precedent.

ORDER:

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment in Calendar Case No.1097 of 2006 dated 08.04.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem, holding the respondent No.1/accused No.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC.’) and respondent No.2 to 9/accused Nos.1 to 9 found not guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 326 read with 34 of ‘the IPC.’

2. The following material grounds are raised in the revision:

i. The learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, and 326 read with 34 of ‘the IPC’.

ii. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the ingredients to constitute the said offences were proved by legal and reliable evidence to convict the accused for the offences charged.

iii. The learned Magistrate should have seen that the evidence of P.W-1 was fully corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8.

iv. The learned Magistrate should have seen that P.W-1 was an injured witness, his evidence was fully corroborated with the medical evidence.

v. The learned Magistrate should have seen that P.Ws.3 and 4 clearly stated in their chief examination that the incident happened 5 or 6 years ago on one day at 6.30 and 7.00 p.m., and the incident happened four houses away from their house and they had seen the commission of the said offence.

vi. The learned Magistrate failed to see that the evidence of hostile witnesses may not be rejected in toto.

vii. The learned Magistrate should have seen that Ex.P9 wound certificate is fully corroborated with MO.1 X-Ray belonging to P.W-1 and it corroborated with the evidence of P.W-8.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Revisionist, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 9, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

4. Sri I.V.N.Raju, learned counsel for revisionist reiterated the grounds of revision and urged that the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem suffers from material irregularities and there are perverse findings recorded and therefore it is liable to be set aside and respondent Nos.1 to 9 are liable to be convicted and sentenced.

5. Per contra, Ms. V. Sowmya, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9, argued that P.Ws-2 to 5, who were happened to be direct and independent witnesses, had not supported the case of the prosecution and there was a discrepancy with respect to the weapon allegedly used by the Respondent Nos.1 to 9 for causing the alleged hurt to P.W-1. Except the untrustworthy evidence of P.W- 1, which was not corroborated in material particulars, the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There were no material irregularities committed by the learned Courts below. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem had rightly appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 9. There was neither misreading of the evidence nor perverse findings. Hence, it is argued that the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued in the similar lines with the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and urged this Court to dismiss the revision case as there is no scope in appreciating the evidence by this revisional court and the revision is not maintainable.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is Whether the judgment in C.C.No.1097 of 2006 dated 08.04.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First C