APHC010107992007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 918/2007 Between: 1. A.VIJAY PRASANNA, S/O. MD. QASIM, NMR IN DARGA HAZARATH SYED SAADULLAH HUSSAINI, BADAPAHAD, NIZAMABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. AYYAGARI RAVI KUMAR STATE, S/O JAGANNADHA RAO APHB COLONY, MIG 89 VISAKHAPATNAM 2. STATE OF A.P., REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgement of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in CC.No.420 of 2001, dated 25th day of March, 2003. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(CRLMP 6402 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To condone the delay of 34 days in preferring the Criminal Revision against the Judgment dated 25-3-2003 passed in CC.No.420/2001 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 42227 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C. SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/P.W.1 assailing the Judgment dated 25.03.2003 passed in C.C.No.420 of 2001 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (for short, „the trial Court‟) whereby the trial Court acquitted the 1st Respondent/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows: P.W.1, A. Vijaya Prasamsa, and the accused were in love and subsequently got married on 02.05.2000 at the Srikakulam Registrar‟s Office without the knowledge or consent of their elders. Later, their marriage was solemnized once again on 16.05.2001 at Annavaram Devasthanam in the presence of their parents, during which the accused was given ten tulas of gold along with other articles. Following the marriage, the accused took P.W.1 to Srikakulam, where he began demanding a dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, a motorcycle, and additional household items. Upon her failure to fulfil these demands, the accused allegedly subjected her to both physical and mental harassment. On 18.06.2001, he is said to have attempted to kill her by pouring 3 kerosene on her, after which she returned to her parental home. Subsequently, on 20.06.2001, the accused came to Visakhapatnam, assaulted her, and issued threats to her and her parents with dire consequences. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a criminal case was registered against the accused. 4. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, took cognizance under section 498-A IPC against the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.Р.С. 5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet averments were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D8 were marked. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and stated that he had no defence witnesses. 7. The trial court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, vide its Judgment dated 25.03.2003 in C.C.No.420 of 2001, and acquitted the accused. 8. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal, the unsuccessful defacto complainant/P.W.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment dated 25.03.2003 in C.C.No.420 of 2001 passed by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 4 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the Judgment of the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is sustainable in law? POINT: 10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/P.W.1 contends that the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. It is argued that the trial Court failed to give due weight to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and overlooked the fact that the prosecution established the essential ingredients constituting the offence. The learned counsel further submits that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the specific incident dated 18.06.2001, wherein the accused allegedly attempted to set P.W.1 on fire. It is asserted that P.W.1 narrowly escaped, sought refuge at her parental home, and promptly lodged a report on 21.06.2001. The petitioner contends that the learned Judge erred in discarding the prosecution's case based on minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 3, which do not go to the root of the matter and are insufficient to undermine the overall credibility of the witnesses. 11. It is settled law as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court”. 12. A perusal of the record reveals that the trial Court recorded certain reasons for acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. The wife of the accused / de facto complainant was examined as P.W.1. The marriage between the accused and P.W.1, solemnized on 16.05.2001 at Annavaram Devasthanam, is undisputed. According to the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3, prior to the marriage, an amount of ₹2 lakhs was given to the accused as dowry. However, within three days of the marriage, the accused allegedly 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 5 began to assault P.W.1 physically, demanding an additional ₹2 lakhs as dowry. P.W.1 further stated that on 17.06.2001, the accused forcibly compelled her to execute a letter purportedly stating that her parents alone would be responsible if anything untoward occurred. Notably, the prosecution has not produced such a letter by seizing it from the accused‟s possession. Given the specific allegation regarding this letter, the Investigating Officer was duty-bound to investigate its existence. Consequently, the prosecution's evidence regarding the said letter is unsupported by any independent corroboration. 13. The trial Court expressed doubt regarding the prosecution‟s claim about the financial capacity of the parents of the Petitioner/P.W.1 to pay the alleged dowry amount. The evidence of P.W.1 revealed that after the marriage, she underwent an eye operation, the entire expense of which was borne by the accused. The trial Court also noted that Exs.D3 to D8, consisting of letters written by P.W.1 to the accused, indicate that P.W.1 herself requested the accused for a registered marriage as well as financial assistance for her eye operation. P.W.1 further stated that her father later sought reimbursement for the operation expenses from his office. 14. The material on record indicates that disputes arose within one year of the marriage, with P.W.1 attributing specific allegations against her husband, including that she was subjected to physical assault immediately after the marriage. Conversely, the record also shows that the accused provided a substantial sum for P.W.1's eye operation. However, according to P.Ws. 1 to 3, this amount was subsequently reimbursed. 15. The evidence on record indicates that disputes arose between the parties within one year of their marriage. Although evidence was adduced regarding the payment of dowry, there is no mention of the alleged dowry amount in Ex.P1 report. The trial Court specifically observed in its Judgment at Paragraph 8 that "as seen from Ex.P1 report given by P.W.1, there is no mention about the giving of dowry to the accused." It is noteworthy that Ex.P1 report was lodged after disputes had already emerged between the parties. 6 Had the parents of P.W.1 indeed paid such a dowry amount to the accused, it would likely have been reflected in Ex.P1 report. The omission of such a critical fact creates doubt regarding the prosecution's version. Moreover, there is an inconsistency regarding the timing of the alleged dowry payment. The trial Court highlighted these discrepancies by referring to the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 16. In Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde V. State of Karnataka 2, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that: 12. The word “contradiction” is of a wide connotation which takes within its ambit all material omissions and under the circumstances of a case, a court can decide whether there is one such omission as to amount to contradiction. 17. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. In S. Govidaraju vs. State of Karnataka3, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. 18. The prosecution witness, P.W.3, S. Satyavathi, specifically stated that on 16.06.2001, she and P.W.2, K. Susheela, visited the accused‟s house and found P.W.1 with injuries all over her body and the house filled with vomit. However, this crucial fact was not corroborated by P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence. If such events had indeed occurred, it is unlikely that P.Ws. 1 and 2 would have omitted mentioning them. The prosecution failed to establish that P.W.1 sustained injuries as narrated by P.W.3. If P.W.1 had suffered such injuries, she would have been medically examined, especially since Ex.P1 report was lodged within five days of the alleged incident. The prosecution did not explain why the Investigating Officer failed to arrange for P.W.1‟s medical examination, a significant omission that casts doubt on P.W.3‟s testimony. 2 (2004) 12 SCC 492 3 MANU/SC/0839/2013 7 Furthermore, as correctly observed by the trial Court, the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses to substantiate the allegations of dowry harassment. 19. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and duly evaluated the material placed on record. The findings were arrived at after a comprehensive and correct evaluation of the case from all relevant perspectives. Accordingly, no cogent grounds have been made out to warrant interference with the trial Court‟s finding concerning the acquittal of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. 20. The Trial Court rightly reached its conclusion, providing sound and justifiable reasons. Therefore, the petitioner‟s request for interference lacks merit. A re-appreciation of the evidence reveals no misdirection or misinterpretation by the Trial Court. Upon careful reconsideration, there is no flaw in the findings of fact by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal revision case against the acquittal is dismissed, and the order of acquittal is confirmed, and there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 25.03.2003 passed in C.C.No.420 of 2001 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 06.08.2025 MS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 918 of 2007 Date: 06.08.2025 MS