B SURENDERJI Vs. M ANJANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The de facto complainant, petitioner herein, files this criminal revision case against the judgment in C. C. No. 216 of 1999 dated 28-2-2001 on the ground of perversity and miscarriage of justiceand for disbelieving the ocular evidence, which is supported by medical evidence and other witnesses.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that there is material to show that the incident took place and the sme is corroborated by P.W. 2, who was a farm servant, and also supported by medical evidence. He contends that the judgment of the Court below is perverse and the findings are to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused, who are respondents 1 to 3 contends that the versions are not supported by medical evidence and P.W. 2 is only farm servant who is interested in P.W. 1 and the incident has never happened. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the father and brother of P.W. 1 are not examined in respect of the incident that took place at the photo studio.