APHC010386652009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2111 OF 2009 Between: 1. J.NAGAVENI @ SHASIKALA, W/o J.Pulikonda, Housewife, R/o Near Sreenivasa Theatre, Nandavaram (V&M), Kurnool (D). ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD 4 OTHERS, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, through Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandavaram PS., 2. J Pulikonda, S/o Jinkala Doddappa, Armed Reserved Police Constable No. 558, Working at Present at Dudekonda Telephone Exchange, Devanakonda (P&M), Kurnool (D). 3. M Malleswari, D/o M.Venkanna, Housewife, C/o J. Pulikonda, Armed Reserved Constable No. 558, Dedukonda Telephone Exchange, 4. M Venkanna, S/o Bheemaiah, RTC Driver, R/o Gajuladinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. M Nagendramma, W/o M.Venkanna, Housewife, R/o Gajulandinne Village, Gonegandla Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: K RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondents: MASTHAN NAIDU CHERUKURI Counsel for the Respondents:PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 ORDER: Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.2009 passed in C.C.No.333 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Allur. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that petitioner, being the de facto complainant, lodged a complaint to the police alleging commission of offences by A.1 under Sections 498-A, 494 and 420 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and against A.2 to A.4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448 read with 34 IPC. Charges were duly framed by learned trial court and trial was commenced. During trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution as P.Ws.1 to 7 and documents, viz., Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. After completion of evidence, the learned trial court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them of the charges. Hence, present revision case is filed by the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence before learned trial court in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC against A.1, but learned trial court has not properly considered the said evidence and documents and erroneously acquitted A.1 by extending the benefit of doubt. 4. In a nut shell, prosecution case demonstrates as follows: 4 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 A.1 married P.W.1/petitioner on 16.02.1996. At the time of marriage, dowry in the form of cash and material was given to A.1. It is alleged that about one year after marriage, A.1 started harassing P.W.1 by demanding additional dowry and two thulas of gold. Unable to bear the harassment, P.W.1 went to her parents' house at Nandavaram. While petitioner was staying at her parents' house, A.1 married A.2 at Pulikonda Village under Pathikonda Mandal. A.2 is daughter of A.3 and A.4. 5. It is further case of prosecution that thereafter P.W.1 gave a complaint before the II Town Police Station against A.1 to A.4. Crime No.108 of 2003 was started, coming to know about the same, A.1 came to P.W.1 and stated that he would look after her well and thereafter the said case was closed. Subsequently, P.W.1 was brought by A.1 to Yemmiganur and kept in a rented house belonging to P.W.5, where A.1 used to visit her. Even then, A.1 allegedly beat P.W.1 and demanded additional dowry from her parents. On 18.02.2004, while P.W.1 was continuing to live with A.1 at Yemmiganur, A.2 to A.4 came to the said address and allegedly beat P.W.1. At that time, P.Ws.3 to 5 and L.W.3 were present and witnessed the incident. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged and the same was forwarded to police, whereupon Crime No.45 of 2004 was registered. After investigation, police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against all the accused. 5 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that allegation regarding second marriage of A.1 with A.2 has been sufficiently established by the prosecution by placing documentary evidence on record. It is submitted that Ex.P.4 is photograph with negative showing A.1 putting a garland on A.2. Ex.P.5 is receipt issued by temple pujari on 21.05.2003, showing the alleged performance of marriage between A.1 and A.2 in temple. Ex.P.8 is certified copy of study/date of birth certificate of A.2, which shows that at the time of alleged marriage A.2 was a minor. Ex.P.10 is certified copy of medical report of the Medical Officer, Gonagandla, in the year 2004, showing that A.2 gave birth to a child and name of the father of the child was mentioned as A.1. Ex.P.13 is certified copy of delivery certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon. Ex.P.14 is the certified copy of the date of birth of A.2, which also shows that A2 was a minor at the time of alleged marriage. It is further submitted that P.W.4 was personally present at alleged marriage between A.1 and A.2. According to the learned counsel, despite said oral and documentary evidence, learned trial court has not properly appreciated the material on record and has erroneously acquitted the accused. 7. Heard Mr. K. Rajanna, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. P.Somayaji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the material on record. 6 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 8. On thorough perusal of paragraph 18 of judgment of learned trial court, it appears that though learned trial court has referred the documents marked before it, trial court is of the view that said documents were not sufficient to prove the marriage between A.1 and A.2 during subsistence of marriage between A.1 and P.W.1. Learned trial court also observed that evidence of P.W.4 was not believable in view of discrepancies between his statement and other material on record. 9. According to Section 494 IPC, second marriage of A.1 with A.2, during subsistence of marriage with P.W.1, has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The main ingredient of Section 494 IPC is solemnization of second marriage during lifetime of spouse. In the present case, it has been held that P.W.1 is first wife of A.1. However, prosecution is required to prove in spite of subsistence of valid marriage A.1 and A.2 had undergone a marriage. In order to prove alleged marriage dated 21.05.2003, Ex.P.4 was relied upon. An objection was raised before learned trial court regarding relationship between positive and corresponding photographic negative marked as Ex.P.4. No photographer was examined to establish the photograph or its negative. Therefore, evidentiary value of Ex.P.4 cannot be accepted. The photograph could have been accepted to be true if the person who had taken the photograph had been examined. Likewise, receipt issued by temple priest, relied upon as Ex.P.5, also requires proof by temple priest who allegedly 7 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 issued the same. The said priest was not examined before trial court to prove the document. Other documents relating to birth of child of A.2 do not by themselves establish alleged marriage. A child can be conceived without performance of a valid marriage and, therefore, such circumstance cannot automatically lead to a presumption that there was a valid marriage between A.1 and A.2. Merely because the name of A.1 as father in a certificate, it cannot by itself prove the existence of alleged marriage between A.1 and A.2. Learned trial court also disbelieved evidence of P.W.4, in view of contradictions and discrepancies in his evidence. 10. Upon consideration of the aforesaid material, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, has limited scope to reappreciate or reassess the evidence and interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Unless the findings recorded by learned trial court are shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. The power of High Court in revision against order of conviction is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah reported in (2026) SCC Online SC 1485 has held in paragraphs 7.1, 7.3 and 7.5 as follows: 7.1. This Court, in the State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2003 observed that the High Court, in exercise of its 8 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 revisional jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an in-depth roving re-examination of the oral evidence and medical evidence and come to a conclusion contrary to the consistent one reached by two courts below. In the facts of the present case, in the impugned judgment, the High Court gravely erred in upsetting the concurrent findings of conviction of the trial court and the Appellate Court by substituting its own conclusions and reasoning on the merits of the case and thereby erred in setting aside the well-reasoned and correct judgment and orders of the trial and appellate courts. 7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial dicta of this Court wherein time and again it has been observed that the High Court shall not interfere with the orders of the lower court unless: i. The order or finding of the lower court is perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly unreasonable or wholly unreliable or untenable in law. ii. The lower court has passed the impugned order after considering an immaterial or irrelevant material or no material at all. iii. There is a non-consideration of any relevant material or the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. 7.5. In the facts of the present case, we find that the High Court has failed to highlight any reason or material satisfaction to the effect that there was any such glaring contradiction or 9 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 perversity apparent on the face of the record so as to justify the exercise of the powers under revisional jurisdiction and thereby erred in interfering with the judgment and orders of the courts below. Therefore, the present appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the High Court committed an error in setting aside the order of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No sufficient ground has been mentioned by the High Court in its judgment to enable it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside the conviction. 11. On consideration of material on record, I do not find sufficient ground to interfere with finding of learned trial court insofar as offence under Section 494 IPC is concerned. 12. So far as offence under Sections 323 read with 34 IPC against A.2 to A.4. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence relating to the alleged incident dated 18.02.2004. Prosecution case is that A.2 to A.4 came to the place where P.W.1 was residing beat her. P.W.1 deposed that on the said date A.2 to A.4 came to Yemmiganur at about 2.00 p.m. and beat her. It was also deposed that her mother and brother were present and rescued her. Her mother was examined as P.W.3; P.W.2, i.e., brother of P.W.1, was not present at the relevant time, as noticed by the learned trial court. P.W.3 was projected as an eyewitness to the incident. Learned trial court analysed the 10 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 evidence and noticed discrepancies in the version of witnesses. P.W.5, owner of the house where P.W.1 was staying, deposed about alleged incident, but her presence at relevant time was not stated by P.W.3, who was projected as an eyewitness. Learned trial court, after considering said discrepancies, extended the benefit of doubt to A.2 to A.4. Charge under Section 323 read with 34 IPC has to be proved by establishing that A.2 to A.4 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1. On careful consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, there are several discrepancies. P.Ws.1 to 4 are closely related to each other and there is no independent witness supporting alleged incident. Further, in order to prove charge under Section 323 read with 34 IPC against several persons, prosecution has to establish participation of accused persons i.e., particular overt act has to be established in commission of the offence. Prosecution has not placed such clinching evidence to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. This is also admitted that there existed apparent enmity between the parties. Therefore, this Court finds no sufficient ground to hold that the observation of learned trial court is improper or illegal. Hence, finding of acquittal in respect of offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC does not call for interference. 13. I have also perused the order of learned trial court insofar as offence under Section 448 IPC is concerned. Main ingredient of Section 448 IPC is commission of house-trespass with requisite intention. In the present case, 11 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 prosecution alleged that accused persons trespassed entered the house of P.W.1 with an intention to beat her. When alleged offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC has not been proved, the allegation of trespass with such intention also has not been established. Therefore, finding of learned trial court with regard to offence under Section 448 IPC also does not call for interference. 14. However, insofar as offence under Section 498-A IPC against A.1 is concerned, learned trial court considered statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It appears from prosecution case that the said statement was recorded before the learned Magistrate which did not contain any allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC and there is no effective challenge to the recording of said statement. Learned trial court specifically considered the said statement and the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the alleged harassment. On appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court recorded its finding with regard to the failure of the prosecution to establish ingredients of offence under Section 498-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of sufficient grounds to hold that the said finding is perverse or illegal, this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the same. 15. Learned Trial Court considered the offences under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and recorded its findings on basis of evidence available on record. Prosecution has failed to establish the 12 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 said offences beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the findings recorded by learned trial court in respect of said offences also do not warrant interference. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date:28.09.2026 JLSR 13 Crl.R.C.No.2111 of 2009 154 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:2111 of 2009 28.09.2026 JLSR