PAPPU KASIRATNAM Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these Revisions are preferred by the de-facto-complainant against the very same Accused Nos.,1 and 2, relating to the same incident and as the issue involved in these Criminal revision cases are one and the same, these matters are taken up together, for disposal, by this Common Order.

(2.) Crl.R.C.No.1125 of 2009 is preferred by the de-facto complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.04.2009in C.C.No.01/2008,on the file of learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam (for short "trial Court"), wherein, Accused Nos.,1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 448, 324 and 509 of the IPC.

(3.) Crl.R.C.No.1127 of 2009 is preferred by the de-facto complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09.04.2009in S.C.No.60 of 2008, on the file of the trial Court, wherein, Accused Nos.,1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 448, 324 and 354 of the IPC.