Retrial of individuals acquitted in prior proceedings violates the principle of double jeopardy under Section 300 Cr.P.C., which prohibits trying a person again for the same offence.

ORDER :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment, dated 05.10.2016, passed in Crl.A.No.37 of 2015 by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2012, the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that on 23.04.2012 at about 06:00 PM, while the husband of the de facto complainant, her father-in-law and brother-in-law were marking in their own land, the adjacent plot owners i.e., the accused, demanded them to leave two feet width of place and when they refused to do so, all the accused beat her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law with sticks and caused bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Based on the said report, the Sub-Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2012, under Sections 147 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. against the accused. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of the father-in-law of the de facto complainant by name Vollapuram Ramireddy, who received severe head injury, and altered the Section of Law from and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. to Sections 148 and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet, upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, has taken cognizance of the case and numbered the same as P.R.C.No.44 of 2012 and thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, has registered the same as S.C.No.577 of 2012 and made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, who after a full-fledged trial has found the accused not guilty of the offences under and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. and acquitted them of the said offences, however, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted them of the said offence and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months. Thus, accused Nos.2 and 5 are acquitted. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 preferred Crl.A.No.37 of 2015 before the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment, dated 05.10.2016, remanded the matter to the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed by accused Nos.2 and 5.

4. The operative portion of the impugned judgment, dated 05.10.2016, is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“20. In the result, the Judgment of trial Court passed on 07-04-2015 in S.C.No.577 of 2012 convicting the accused/appellants herein for the offence under Sec.324 IPC acquitting of the other accused nos.2 and 5 having found them not guilty of the offences under Secs. 148, 307 r/w 149 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to trial court for simultaneous disposal along with C.C.No.35 of 2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet on its committal to the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet uninfluenced with any of the observations and findings given in Judgment dated 07-04-2015 and Judgment of th