IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTHDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1162 OF 2010 Between: Smt. V. Chandrakala, W/o Venkata Ramana Naik, Housewife, R/o Vepacherla Diguva ThandaMIlage, Ananthapur Mandal & District. ...PETITIONER /COMPLAINANT AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep- by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. " ..‘v. 2. V.Venkataramana Naik, S/o late Samala Naik, Bus Conductor, RTC Depot, Rayadurgam, Ananthapur District. R/o Karavulapalli Thanda Village, Gorantia Mandal, 3. V. Rudramma, W/o late Somala Naik, R/o Karavulapalli Thanda Village, Gorantia Mandal, Ananthapur District. RESPONDENT/ACCUSED N0.2 & 3 Revision filed under Section^ 397 & 401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the HighyCourt may be pleased toto set-aside the Judgment passed in CC.No. 517 of 2006, dt.25-06-2008 on the file of the Court of the Addl. J.F.C.M,, Ananthapur. ii i; Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: SMT D SANGEETHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Thd Court made the following:: ORDER I (RR-2 & 3) ■■j'- 4' i 5 i APHC010641972010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1162/2010 Between: Smt. V. Chandrakala ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP rep by its PP Hyd 2 Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.DSANGEETHA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: The Revision case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging dated 25.06.2008 in C.C.No.517 of 2006 the judgment on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur, whereby and whereunder, the respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 were found not guilty for the 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.ll62 of 2010 Dated 19.03.2025 offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’) and were acquitted under Section 248 (1) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and 2. the learned counsel for the respondents. Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision submitted that even though the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial court failed to see the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 on correct lines and failed to appreciate 3. Exs.P1 to P3. The impugned judgment suffers from flagrant irregularities and urged to set aside the judgment and allow the revision case and remand the matter to the learned trial court for fresh consideration and disposal. Per contra, Sri. N. Mourya Singh, the learned counsel representing Ms. D. Sangeetha Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued that the learned trial court having examined the evidence of witnesses on the prosecution and the exhibits marked, came to correct conclusion that the prosecution had not proved the guilt of respondent Nos.2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted them, and urged to dismiss the revision 4. case. Per contra, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and requested to dismiss the revision case. 5. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.ll62 of 2010 Dated 19.03.2025 Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public 6. Prosecutor. I have perused the record. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in C.C. No.517 of 2006dated 25.06.2008, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Anantapur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities ? And to what relief?” 7. In this connection, it is apposite to refer the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwah Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under: 8. “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 bv 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 '(2002) 6 s|:c 650 4 Dr.YLR;1^^' Crl.R.C.No.ll62 of 20lJ Dated 19.03.2025 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 inifrmity 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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ 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 no 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 or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP^, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “1. 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 cases, 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 9. 10. opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there -AIR 1951 sc 196 ^AIR 1962 SC 1788 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.ll62 of 2010 Dated 19.03.2025 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. ” In order to prove the guilt of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. careful perusal of the entire evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, there is no iota of convincing evidence that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had demanded additional dowry. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was a second marriage, by that time, the respondent No.1 already got two children. 11 On a 6 Dr.YLR,^| Crl.R.C.No.ll62 of 201J Dated 19.03.2025 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned trial court, P.W.2 to 5 are not the eye-witnesses of the alleged offence, the ingredients of Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are not traceable in the evidence of P.W.2 and 3, who are the parents of the P.W.1. Evidence of P.W.4 and 5 is fraught with interestedness with P.W.1 to 3. Moreover, there is no specific narration about the date and time when the respondent No.2 had harassed the petitioner. P.W.1 to 5 stated that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 lived together at Hindupur for a brief time during their early stage of marriage. Yet no witnesses residing in the locality at Hindupur were secured and examined by the police. There is no specific evidence that on what date and time the petitioner was forced to consume pesticide. There was a delay of three (03) days in complaining giving information to police by P.W.1 and that delay was not properly explained with convincing reasons. The learned trial court rightly observed that the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 13. was not inspiring any confidence and trustworthy, and acquitted the respondent Nos.2 and 3. There was no misreading of the evidence in not finding the respondent Nos.2 and 3 guilty by the trial Court. There are no perverse findings. The learned trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and not found the respondent Nos.2 and 3 guilty for the offence charged. There are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a criminal case filed at the behest of the de-facto complainant. No appeal was preferred by the State 14. Dr.YLR, J Crl,R.C.No.ll62 of 2010 Dated 19.03.2025 against the impugned judgment. Re-appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken in a revision case, it is brought to the notice by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide a memo appending the order of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur in H.M.O.P. No.108 of 2015 dated 21.02.2017. A perusal of the order, it is clear that the petition filed under Section 13(i)(a)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was allowed and a decree of divorce was drawn as per the terms and conditions deposed by the petitioner and the respondent No.2. Because the matrimonial tie between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was already severed, nothing remains either in this case or for the petitioner to agitate anything further. 15. For the above-mentioned reasons, there are no merits in the revision case. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/- V. SATYANARAYANA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The AdditionaUudicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapur District. 2. One CC to Sri. M Karibasaiah Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. D Sangeetha Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]. 6. Three CD Copies AL HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1162 of 2010 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE u-