Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Midde Durga Rao, S/o. Rattaiah – Appellant
Versus
Vadlamudi Venkatarao – Respondent
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 wa
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.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited; it cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction without manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice.
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, limiting interference to exceptional cases only where manifest injustice or procedural errors exist, emphasizing the importance of the trial co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for exceptional cases to interfere with an order of acquittal, the prohibition on converting a finding of acquittal into one of con....
The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is extremely narrow and can only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a manifest error of law or procedure, and the High Court cannot convert....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
