1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 APHC010175752019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 653/2019 Between: ARIPURAM SANTHAMMA,, N/O. LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PARENTS HOUSE AT PANCHALI VILLAGE, PACHIPENTA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI, THROUGH TOWN POLICE STATION, SALUR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 2. SIRIPURAM LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O. VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. KONDAKENGUVA VILLAGE, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. S RIPURAM NIRMALA, S/O. VISWANADHAM, .GED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. KONDAKENGUVA VILLAGE, RAMABHADRAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOMARA PRUDHVI RAJ 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA 2. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 4. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’), challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2019 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, in Crl.A.No.87 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, in D.V.C.No.03 of 2010, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, was confirmed. 2. Mr. Komara Prudvi Raj, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submits that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the complaint. He contends that respondent No.2 is the husband of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is his sister, and therefore the domestic relationship between the parties is undisputed. He further submits that the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was driven out of the matrimonial home after she refused to consent to respondent No.2 marrying another woman. Hence, he 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 prays that the impugned judgments be set aside and the Criminal Revision Case be allowed. 3. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the scope of interference under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is limited and that re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction. She submits that both the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court have rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and recorded concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner has failed to establish the allegations of domestic violence by cogent and convincing evidence, and the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity warranting interference. Accordingly, she prays that the Criminal Revision Case be dismissed. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumar Ch. and Ms.T.Soumya Naidu, learned Legal Aid Counsels for respondent Nos.2 and 3, concurred with the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and contended that the judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity, patent illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. They further submitted that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be re-appreciated in the absence of such infirmities. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 5. Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsels for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.87 of 2017 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Parvathipuram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be: where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this case can be upheld on these principles.” 11. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court. Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible. 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 12. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is the sister of respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court, having appreciated the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the witnesses on both sides, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any of the reliefs, much less the reliefs claimed in the complaint. 13. The learned Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses examined on both sides, rightly confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. This Court has also re-appreciated the evidence available on record. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’. However, the said case ended in acquittal. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the judgment of acquittal before the appropriate Court. 14. The learned Legal Aid Counsels appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submitted that the petitioner had also filed a maintenance case. However, she failed to prosecute the same and, consequently, the said case was dismissed for non-prosecution. 15. On a careful perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and the material available on record, this Court does not find any miscarriage of justice or any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the judgments 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Court or the learned Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 16. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 21.07.2026 RSI Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.653 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 653 of 2019 Dated: 21.07.2026 RSI 55