Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Kudipudi Nagooru S/o Veera Raju – Appellant
Versus
Gollakuti Krishnayya S/o Tatarao Paddy – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant assailing the Judgment dated 22.10.2008 passed in C.C.No.522 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku (for short "the trial Court") whereby the trial Court acquitted the Respondents/A.1 to A.8 for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 r/w. Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short "IPC").
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
-
3. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are that:
(a) P.W.1, Kudupudi Nagooru, was cultivating the lands belonging to L.W.9, Tammisetti Venkanna, under a magatha arrangement. It is alleged that A.1 had expressed his desire for L.W.9 to transfer the cultivation rights to him instead, but L.W.9 refused. As a result, A.1 allegedly abused P.W.1. Furthermore, it is alleged that on 27.05.2004 at around 8:00 P.M., A.1 to A.5 assaulted P.W.1 with hands and legs while he was at the Ramalayam Temple in East Vipparru Village.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any significant discrepancies or contradictions in evidence lead to the benefit of the doubt for the accused, which justifies acquittal.
The importance of explaining injuries on the accused and the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.
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.
An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittal should not be disturbed without cogent grounds.
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness statements undermine conviction.
![Palla Bandari, Arthamuru [v], Vizianagaram Dist. VS State Of A P Rep By P P Hyderabad - 2024 Supreme(AP) 672](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Andhra_Pradesh_2.png)
The court reaffirmed that consistent witness testimonies, despite minor discrepancies, can substantiate a conviction under IPC provisions.
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
