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.

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. Subsequently, at about 9:00 P.M., A.1 to A.8 reportedly came to the house of P.W.1, dragged him onto the road, and beat him with a cool drink bottle, causing a bleeding injury.

(b) In the meantime, when P.W.2, Kudupudi Srinu, and L.W.3, Kudupudi Ganapathi, attempted to intervene and rescue P.W.1, the accused allegedly assaulted them as well. Following the incident, P.W.1 approached the police on 31.05.2004 and gave a statement. Based on this statement, P.W.8, B. Nageswara Rao, Head Constable at Iragavaram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 2004 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . During the investigation, P.W.8 visited the scene of the offence, prepared a rough sketch, examined the witnesses, and upon completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet accordingly.

4. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, took cognizance against the accused under sections 324 and 323 r/w. 34 of IPC.

5. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.Р.С.

-

6. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w.34 of IPC and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P6 were marked, and during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel for the accused elicited contradictions which were marked as Exs.D1 to D.4.

8. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and stated that they had no defence witnesses and pleaded not guilty.

9. The Trial Court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A.1 to A.8 not guilty of the offences stated supra, vide its Judgment dated 22.10.2008 in C.C.No.522 of 2004, and acquitted A.1 to A.8.

10. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal of the accuse