Telangana High Court
S.A. Sayeed vs Mohd Jawad Aga 4 Others on 2 February, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRL.R.C.No.904 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
None appeared for the revision petitioner on the
previous date of hearing and as well as today. This court,
basing on the material available on record, is constrained to
dispose of the criminal revision case since the said revision
pertains to the year 2007.
2. This criminal revision case is filed by the de facto
complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.06.2007 in
C.C.No.791 of 2004, on the file of the VIII-Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused
the record.
4. The revision petitioner herein is the de facto
complainant, on whose complaint, a case in Crime No.109 of
2004 of P.S.Dabeerpura was registered against respondent
Nos.1 to 4 herein/accused, for the offences punishable under
Sections 448, 324 IPC. The case against A-2 was split up and
numbered as C.C.No.885 of 2005. As against the acquittal of
the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 vide the impugned judgment,
the de facto complainant has preferred this revision.
5. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge has grossly erred in appreciating
the evidence on record in proper perspective, which resulted
in wrong conclusions. The Court below has wrongly recorded
a finding that the prosecution has not produced any
satisfactory evidence to establish the offences alleged against
the accused and, accordingly, acquitted respondent Nos.1, 3
and 4 herein.
6. The court below framed three points for determination
and they were held in favour of the accused and against the
prosecution. The Court below, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record, found that the prosecution
has failed to establish its case against the accused and,
accordingly, acquitted respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 herein from
the charges levelled against him. The finding of the court
below in paragraph 22 of the judgment is extracted as under:
"Prosecution failed to adduce cogent, reliable
evidence that A1 is one of the persons who participated in
the commission of the offence. A-1 is entitled to be given
benefit of doubt. Non-examination of independent persons
is also fatal to the case. No specific overt act was attributed
to A-3 and A-4. Only vague allegations were made against
A-3 and A-4 that they used unparliamentary language. It is
not safe to rely upon the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the
absence of independent evidence. Hence, A-3 and A-4 are
also entitled to be given benefit of doubt for the offence
u/secs. 448, 324 r/w 34 IPC".
7. On a perusal of the material on record, the judgment of
the Court below, I am of the considered view that the findings
arrived at by the court below are purely based on the evidence
available on record and also based on proper evaluation of
the evidence adduced by the material witnesses. There are no
valid grounds to interfere with the said findings of the Court
below. I do not find any illegality, irregularity, infirmity,
perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment,
warranting interference by this Court by invoking the criminal
jurisdiction.
8. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 02.02.2022
Lrkm
