APHC010635722009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2217/2009 Between: Mahankali Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P rep. by Its P.P Hyd. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. E SAMBASIVA PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2009 in C.C.No.70 of 2007 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala acquitting the respondent No.2 under Section 248(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C’ for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’). 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2217 of 2009 2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. 3. Sri V.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel, representing Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and erroneously acquitted the respondent No.2, even though the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and urged to allow the case. 4. Per contra, Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Trial Court having appreciated the evidence came to conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the respondent No.2 beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the accused. There was no misreading of evidence or material irregularities committed by the learned Trial Court and urged to dismiss the revision case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels by both sides. I have perused the material on record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the judgment in C.C.No.70 of 2007 dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2217 of 2009 Judge, Gurazala, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 7. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1, wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: “12. … We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. 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 1 (2002) 6 SCC 650 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2217 of 2009 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.” 8. 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 Section 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 Government has no right of appeal under Section 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 or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis- appreciated the evidence on record.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of A.P3, 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 2 AIR 1951 SC 196 3 AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2217 of 2009 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; and 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 Section 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.” 10. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondent No.2 had got examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The learned Trial Court carefully analyzed the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and came to conclusion that the guilt of respondent No.2 for the charges framed under Sections 417, 420 and 509 of ‘the I.P.C’ were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were allegedly moved closely with P.W.1 and accused had not supported the case of prosecution and no material evidence was forthcoming against respondent No.2, except the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 which evidence is also inconsistent coupled with 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2217 of 2009 the laches in the investigation. It is brought to the notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have got their marriages performed separately and they are living with their spouses happily. The alleged occurrence of the offence happened in the year 2006. The revision was filed in the year 2009, nearly 19 years have passed by. There was no convincing evidence, acceptable evidence adduced by P.W.1 to prove the guilt of respondent No.2 for the offence charged. Even Ex.P2 to Ex.P8 do not reveal that the respondent No.2 had entertained a deceitful intention from the initial stage itself. The learned Trial Court having appreciated the evidence of witnesses of prosecution and the exhibits, came to correct conclusion and acquitted the respondent No.2. There was no misreading of the evidence, there was no irregularities in conducting the trial. Therefore, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, this 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. Date: 19.03.2025 sj 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.2217 of 2009 61 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2217 of 2009 Date: 19.03.2025 sj