ORDER :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), by the petitioner/complainant challenging the Judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in S.C.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, (for short, ‘the trial Court’), whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 4/A1 to A3, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, the deceased is the daughter of P.W-1, who got married to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of accused No.1. It has been alleged that there are some marital disputes between the A1 and deceased and there are some altercations with A2 and A3. It has been alleged that all the accused persons had been planning to perform 2^nd marriage to accused No.1 with another women. It has also been alleged that in furtherance of such plan, all the accused persons took the deceased to outskirts of their village on the pretext of answering nature calls. Thereafter, A2 and A3 throttled the deceased by pressing her neck with their hands and at that time, the deceased alleged to have raised hue and cries while A1 shutted her mouth and killed the deceased on spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons shifted the dead body of the deceased and informed villagers that she died due to snake bite.

3. After receiving information, P.W-1 and P.W-2 being parents of the deceased, went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and after completion of the rituals, the dead body of the deceased was buried. After ten days, P.W-1 owing to some suspicion, gave complaint to the Police and reasons thereby, the instant crime case was registered.

4. During investigation, the Police conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased after excavating it from the tomb. P.W-10-Doctor performed autopsy. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the charge against the accused persons. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to an opinion that there was no direct evidence, no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstantial evidence were not so connected to implicate the accused in homicidal death of the deceased and accordingly all the accused persons are acquitted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in acquitting all the accused persons. He submits that though there was no direct evidence or eye witnesses to the incident, there were circumstantial evidence i.e., P.W-4 who had seen the deceased lastly with A2 and A3. It is further submitted that learned Magistrate had misread the crucial evidence on record i.e., the evidence of P.W-10, who is the Doctor, conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. He further submits that there were two vital injuries over the dead body, learned Court below had not commented regarding presence of injury and the reasons thereon. He further submits that learned Court below had not properly read out the entire evidence and thereby there is miscarriage of justice and thus requests this Court to remand back the matter for decision afresh.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganesha v. Sharanappa, (2014) 1 SCC 148, wherein it was held as follows:

“In a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of