Failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence constitutes a significant infirmity, allowing the court to draw adverse inferences regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the veracity of the prosecution's case.

Revision filed under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toCriminal R.C.against the Judgment in S.C.No.99/2000 on the file of the Asst.Sessions Judge,Tanuku, W.G.District dt.14-10-2003.

IA NO: 1 OF 2004(CRLMP 3243 OF 2004

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Condone the delay of '48 days' in representation the above R.C.

IA NO: 2 OF 2004(CRLMP 4577 OF 2004

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Condone the delay of 41 of days in filing the Revision.

IA NO: 3 OF 2004(CRLMP 4578 OF 2004

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispensewith the filing of Certified copy of Judgment in SC No.99/2000 dt.14-10-2003 of Asst.Sessions Judge's Court Tanuku, in the above Crl R.C.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.C SHARAN REDDY

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

The instant Criminal Revisions Case has been preferred against Order of Acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court in S.C.No.99 of 2000 wherein and where under, learned court below has acquitted all the respondent Nos.1 to 14 from the charge under Section 147, 148, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘of I.P.C’).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that, defacto-complainant as well as other injured and the respondents herein are belong to same caste and they were engaged in the same profession. They were having disputes in between two groups in furtherance of enmity. on 30.07.1998, an altercation took place in petty family affairs. The petty family matters turned into huge altercation between the parties and thereby all the respondents armed with deadly weapons formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked defacto-complainant as well as other injured. By such PW.1 as well as other injured sustained severe bodily injuries and admitted into hospital. The matter was referred to police, accordingly the crime was registered.

3. To prove the prosecution case, twenty two (22) witnesses were examined, thirty four (34) documents were marked and seventeen (17) material objects were placed. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined. After recording evidences and after hearing parties, learned court below acquitted all the accused persons from the charges leveled against them and finding them not guilty. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4. Learned Trail has committed error and misread the evidences of prosecution. Learned court below has also not considered the exhibited documents. Learned Court below has not applied mind in scanning the evidences of prosecution witnesses. There are sufficient material before the learned Trial Court to hold that respondents were committed offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. Prosecution witnesses are injured and eye witnesses, who specifically stated the factum of attack of respondents. All the evidences are corroborated to each other supported by the medical witness. Police have recorded the statements of available witnesses, which was also supported the prosecution case by reports of doctors. Doctor has examined the injured, though it appears t