1 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 APHC010036142019 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: 150/2019 Between: 1. T.SYAM BABU, KOTHAPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANDRAVATHI HOSPOITAL ROAD, MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DIST. 2. TALAMALA MARIYA DASU, KOTHAPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANDRAVATHI HOSPITAL ROAD, MANGALAGIRI , GUNTU RDIST. 3. RALAMALA RAJAMMA, KOTHAPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANDRAVATHI HOSPITAL ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. AT AMARAVATHI. 2. TALAMALA MANJULA VANI, D/O. KATIKALA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-2-45/A, 2ND WARD, CHRISTIANPETA, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 23.06.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN CRL.R.C.NO.150 OF 2026. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. P.VENKATA MOHAN RAO(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.,’), seeking to set aside the judgment dated 12.02.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.211 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, Guntur District, in C.C.No.438 of 2012, dated 15.06.2018 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC’), and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. 2. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submits that the essential ingredients of Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ are not made out. There are several infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1. There was a delay of ten days in lodging the FIR. P.W.1 gave a false report alleging that Accused No.1 and the other accused demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court be set aside and the petitioners be acquitted of the charge. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 3. Alternatively, it is submitted that petitioner No.1 is ready to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- either towards compensation or fine as a measure of financial settlement. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 is the father-in- law and petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2. Petitioners Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of Accused No.1, are aged persons suffering from various age-related ailments. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have been living separately for more than one and a half decades. They are blessed with two children, who are presently residing with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has not filed any divorce petition before the competent Civil Court. However, respondent No.2 filed a maintenance case against petitioner No.1, wherein she was granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- for herself as well as for the two children. It is also submitted that the petitioners remained in judicial remand for about eight days during the course of the proceedings. 4. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Criminal Revision Case may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders keeping in view the interests of the petitioners, respondent No.2 and their children, particularly in view of the fact that respondent No.2 intends to perform the marriages of the children with the financial assistance of the petitioners. It is also submitted that respondent No.2 expressed similar lines during her interaction with this Court. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 5. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the Criminal Revision Case and submitted that no relief, much less the relief sought by the petitioners, can be granted. She submits that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot appreciate the evidence as if it were sitting as an Appellate Court to examine the veracity of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. P.W.1 categorically deposed that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. The learned Trial Court believed the version of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the petitioners and sentenced them accordingly. The learned Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent findings and it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 6. However, it is submitted that, in view of the present scenario, appropriate orders may be passed keeping in view the proposed marriages of the children of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. 7. On the other hand, Mr.P.Venkata Mohan Rao, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 also made submissions on similar lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and urged that there was no miscarriage of justice or material irregularity in the judgments rendered by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. The scope of a revision is very limited, and re-appreciation of evidence cannot ordinarily be undertaken. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 8. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that the delay of ten days in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case because the offence under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ is a continuing offence. The cause of action would accrue as and when the de-facto complainant/P.W.1/respondent No.2/wife feels that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Therefore, there are no merits on the judicial side to interfere with the concurrent findings in the revision case. However, it is further submitted that, in view of the marriages to be performed for the children of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, appropriate orders may be passed so as to maintain cordial relationships between the petitioners' family and respondent No.2. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2. 10. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 11. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.211 of 2018 dated 12.02.2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 12. The learned Trial Court examined respondent No.2 as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution and got Exs.P.1 to P.3 marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioners/accused. Upon 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners had committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ and accordingly found them guilty, as stated supra. 13. The learned Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, considered and answered all the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the appeal and dismissed the appeal by holding that the judgment of the learned Trial Court is valid, legal and sustainable. The scope of interference in a criminal revision is very limited. 14. 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.” 15. 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 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 16. 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.” 17. 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 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court. Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible. 18. Thus, this Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as if it were sitting as a second appellate Court. On careful consideration of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court, this Court does not find any material irregularity, illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice warranting interference with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ is liable to be confirmed. 19. However, with regard to the sentence of imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that certain mitigating circumstances deserve consideration. 20. The alleged offence took place in the year 2012 and nearly fourteen years have elapsed. The right to a speedy trial and speedy disposal of criminal proceedings is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 21. Right to speedy trial, including the speedy disposal of appeals and revision cases as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary State of Bihar4. This right 4 Air 1979 SC 1360 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar5. 22. With regard to the contention that there was a delay of ten days in lodging the FIR, it has to be pointed out that mere delay in lodging the FIR, particularly in cases involving the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’, by itself does not render the prosecution case doubtful. In cases involving matrimonial cruelty, delay is often natural, as the victim ordinarily makes efforts to preserve the matrimonial relationship, reconcile differences, or acts under social and familial pressure before approaching the police. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab6, at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, observed that matrimonial disputes generally develop over a period of time and that attempts at settlement by relatives or elders are common before approaching the police. Therefore, delay in lodging the report does not, by itself, render the prosecution case unreliable. 23. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents-in-law of respondent No.2 and are stated to be suffering from several age-related ailments. The petitioners have already undergone incarceration for a period of eight days. The offence under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 5 2000 (1) BLJR 37 6 (2000) 5 SCC 207 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 24. Respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 are blessed with two children, one son and one daughter. They are now major and are of marriageable age. Respondent No.2, who is present before this Court, submitted that she intends to perform the marriages of both the children and requires the financial support of petitioner No.1 and the other family members. 25. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.2 has filed a maintenance case against petitioner No.1, wherein petitioner No.1 has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month towards maintenance to respondent No.2 and the children. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be running a cell phone shop. 26. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners voluntarily submitted that petitioner No.1 is willing to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- either by way of compensation or by way of additional fine, so that the said amount may be utilized for the welfare and well-being of respondent No.2 and the children. The said submission appears to be fair, reasonable and convincing. There is no minimum mandatory sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’. 27. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the long lapse of time since the occurrence, the relationship between the parties, the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioners, and the willingness of petitioner No.1 to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the conviction of the petitioners 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’ deserves to be confirmed, the sentence of imprisonment requires modification. 28. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by confirming the conviction of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of ‘the IPC’. However, the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners, subject to payment of an additional fine of Rs.1,50,000/- by petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay the said amount by way of Demand Draft and the same is accepted. The Demand Draft for Rs.1,50,000/- shall be handed over to respondent No.2. 29. It is made clear that the payment of the aforesaid additional fine by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2 shall not come in the way of, or affect, the maintenance being paid by petitioner No.1 to respondent No.2 pursuant to the order passed by the competent Court. 30. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 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 12 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.150 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 150 of 2019 Dated: 21.07.2026 RSI 143