CRLRC/495/2008 of EETHAKOTA RAGASUDHA, Vs JOGI SATYANARAYANA, & 3 OTHERS, on 22 December 2025

1. EETHAKOTA RAG BRAHMANCHERUV

1. JOGI SATYANARA PENUMANTRA MA

2. MEDAPATI VIVE PENUMANTRA MA SINCE RESPONDE CASE AGAINST R DATED 08.07.2025

3. VEMPA SRINIVA PENUMANTRA (MA

4. THE STATE OF PROSECUTOR, HIG Counsel for the Petition

1. LEGAL AID

2. S M SUBHAN

E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEM THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAM AL REVISION CASE NO: 495 OF 2008 ASUDHA,, D/O SREENU, PRIVATE VU, PENUMANTRA MANDAL. AND AYANA, S/O SARAYYA, S.BALIJA, P ANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT EKANANDAREDDY DIED, S/O ANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ENT NO.2/ACCUSED DIED, CRIMIN R2 IS ABATED , AS PER THE COU IN CRL.R.C.NO.495 OF 2008. ASA RAO, S/O VEERANNA, ANDAL), WEST GODAVARI DISTRIC ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY GH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABA ...RES ner: DESH

MBER MANTA

E NURSE, R/O ...PETITIONER PENUMANTRA, T. KASIREDDY, T. NAL REVISION URT'S ORDER RAJAKAPET, CT. ITS PUBLIC AD. SPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. I MAAMU VANI

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order :

The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order dated 27.08.2007 passed by leaned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku in S.C.No.322 of 2005, whereby learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the Accused persons for an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 354 of IPC. The present Petitioner being the defacto complainant has filed the instant Criminal Revision against an order of acquittal.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/ defacto complainant duly appointed by Legal Services Authority submitted the facts before this Court.

3. I have perused the case record and also heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. It appears that on the basis of a complaint dated 13.02.2004, the instant Sessions Case was started against the present Petitioner under Section 341 and 354 of IPC. During the trial, the defacto complainant was examined aw PW-1. The other 7 witnesses were also examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some documents were marked as Exhibits i.e Ex.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence, some contradictions were raised in respect of variance to statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C of PW-2, 3 and 5.

5. Learned court below after hearing the parties opined that the evidence of PW-1 is contradictory. Her earlier version during investigation is not support the prosecution case. Moreover, the delay in lodging the FIR was not properly explained in the prosecution case. The testimony of other witnesses were appeared to uncorroborated. Under that situation, learned Assistant Sessions Judge has acquitted the present Respondents.

6. I have perused the observation of learned Sessions Judge and also perused the evidences on record as lead before learned Sessions Judge. It appears that the statements of PWs are contradictory and it is very unsafe to record of conviction in case Section 341 and 354 of IPC against Accused. The alleged charge leveled against the present Respondents/ Accused persons could not be established. Accordingly, I find no illegality and impropriety in the order of acquittal.

7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Case and same is hereby dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J

Date: 23.12.2025

KK

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 495 OF 2008

23.12.2025

KK