P TIRUPATHI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is laid questioning the acquittal of A.1 to A.4 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, Karimnagar District in C.C.No.434 of 2000. The revision is laid by the de facto complainant. The respondents 2 to 5 are the accused.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is

(3.) SRI V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused and that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge is justified. As rightly noticed, PW.2 is the victim. PW.1 is his son. PWs.3 and 4 are supposed to be eyewitnesses for the incident proper. PW.5 is a corroborative witness. PW.6 is the Doctor, who treated PW.2. PW.7 arrested the accused. However, he was not the main Investigating Officer.