APHC010700592010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 231/2010 Between: 1. SRI G. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA,, S/O SRI OBULAPPA, EGUVAGANGIREDDY PALLI, H/O AMAGONDAPALEM, PUTTAPRTHI MANDALAM, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD 3 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF A.P., AT HYDERABAD, THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLAMADA CIRCLE. 2. SRI P SIVAPPA, S/O SRI. P.CHENNA KESAVULU, R/O KOKANTIVARIPALLI, O.D.CHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 3. SMT P LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA, W/O SRI NARAYANA, R/O KOKANTIVARIPALLI, O.D.CHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. P SMT SUBBAMMA, W/O CHENNAKESAVULU, R/O KOKANTIVARIPALLI, O.D.CHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order of acquittal dt. 30- 11-2009, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, in S.C.No.130 of 2008, and order retrial of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 328 OF 2010 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 permit the petitioner herein to engage an Advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution U/s 24 of Cr.P.C., Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY 2. K.DIVAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. - 2. PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR O R D E R: The Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 8Cr.P.C.9), by the petitioner/complainant challenging the Judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed in S.C.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, (for short, 8the trial Court9), whereby the trial Court acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 4/A1 to A3, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, the deceased is the daughter of P.W-1, who got married to accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of accused No.1. It has been alleged that there are some marital disputes between the A1 and deceased and there are some altercations with A2 and A3. It has been alleged that all the accused persons had been planning to perform 2nd marriage to accused No.1 with another women. It has also been alleged that in furtherance of such plan, all the accused persons took the deceased to outskirts of their village on the pretext of answering nature calls. Thereafter, A2 and A3 throttled the deceased by pressing her neck with their hands and at that time, the deceased alleged to have raised hue and cries while A1 shutted her mouth and killed the deceased on spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons shifted the dead body of the deceased and informed villagers that she died due to snake bite. 3. After receiving information, P.W-1 and P.W-2 being parents of the deceased, went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and after completion of the rituals, the dead body of the deceased was buried. After ten days, P.W-1 owing to some suspicion, gave complaint to the Police and reasons thereby, the instant crime case was registered. 4. During investigation, the Police conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased after excavating it from the tomb. P.W-10-Doctor performed autopsy. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the charge against the accused persons. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to an opinion that there was no direct evidence, no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstantial evidence were not so connected to implicate the accused in homicidal death of the deceased and accordingly all the accused persons are acquitted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in acquitting all the accused persons. He submits that though there was no direct evidence or eye witnesses to the incident, there were circumstantial evidence i.e., P.W-4 who had seen the deceased lastly with A2 and A3. It is further submitted that learned Magistrate had misread the crucial evidence on record i.e., the evidence of P.W-10, who is the Doctor, conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased. He further submits that there were two vital injuries over the dead body, learned Court below had not commented regarding presence of injury and the reasons thereon. He further submits that learned Court below had not properly read out the entire evidence and thereby there is miscarriage of justice and thus requests this Court to remand back the matter for decision afresh. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of Hon9ble Supreme Court in Ganesha v. Sharanappa1, wherein it was held as follows: “In a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of the case. By way of abundant caution, we may herein observe that interference with the order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The High Court may also interfere in those cases of acquittal caused by shutting out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the High Court in revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into that of an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order" 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on decision of Hon9ble Supreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, wherein it was held that: 12.... 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 subsection, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself 1 (2014) 1 SCC 148 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 conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. 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. 8. Relying on the decisions cited above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court can remand back the matter for deciding afresh. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. He further submits that admittedly there are no direct eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5 was also not connecting the entire circumstances. Moreover, the learned Court below had categorically scanned the evidence and passed the order correctly and there is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. He further submits, the injury, as pointed out before this Court, appeared on the dead body was not sufficient to cause death of any person thereby, the learned trial Court has not committed any error. Thus, there are no merits in the instant Criminal Revision Case. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- State, submits that the prosecution had produced as many as eleven (11) witnesses. The learned Sessions Court has gone through the entire evidence on record and has admitted that there are no direct witnesses or eye witnesses, the chain of circumstances are not connected properly to establish the guilt of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein under Section 302 of I.P.C. and hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri P.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the evidence on record as recorded by the learned trial Court. 12. It is admitted fact that the autopsy was done over the dead body after excavating it from the tomb after ten days of the alleged incident. The injuries as recorded by the P.W-10 over the dead body, are as follows:  Contusion is seen over the fronto material recion extending on right side measuring about 10 x 9 cm.  A burnt injury just below the left nipple measuring about 1 x .5 cm x skin deep, edges are black, inverted. 13. Admittedly, the said injuries are not sufficient to cause death. However, the allegation of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein throttled the deceased to death. The evidence of P.W-11 is also relevant in this matter. He deposed that Hyoid bone along with the surrounding soft tissues are intact and there is no injury. In respect of internal examination, in the postmortem report, it is mentioned that neck thyroid cartilage and traches are normal. Though it has been noted in the postmortem report that Hyoid bone doubtful fracture at middle of the hyoid bone, but, evidence of P.W-11 submits that there are no fractures. Reasons thereby, the allegations against the accused that they throttled the deceased cannot be proved by the evidence of P.W-10 and P.W-11. Admittedly in the postmortem report no poison was found, perhaps as autopsy was done after ten days over the dead body reasons thereby, the existence of poison may not be there. Furthermore, on thorough reading of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, it appears that there was only one so called in circumstantial witness with the prosecution who alleged to have seen the deceased with A1, A2 and A3. 14. The learned trial Court has categorically opined that the evidence of P.W-4 could not be believed. In my opinion, the scanning of evidence of P.W- 4 by the learned trail Court is justified. The entire case appeared to be filed after ten days of alleged incident on the basis of apprehension. P.W-4 is not a direct witness, but, if he treated to be a circumstantial evidence, that too if statement of P.W-4 to be believed, it also does not connect the entire chain of circumstances. If P.W-4 really heard the cries of the deceased in the presence of A2 and A3 while he answering the calls of nature, he must have informed the matter instantaneously. In the evidence of P.W-4 it was not there that he found the absence of deceased in the house on that night. In these circumstances, in my view, the scanning of evidences by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be justified. There are no circumstances to believe the case of the prosecution to connect the present respondents to be guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of I.P.C. Thus, in my view, the points, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the order of the acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not justifiable to entertain. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date: 18.03.2026 M K K 244 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 231 of 2010 Date: 18.03.2026 M K K