Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010405982019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1263/2019 Between: 1. PRAGALLAPATI CHAITANYA, W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAGHU RAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O D NO 5-53-31, 6/17 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P RAGHSNENDRA RAHHU RAM, S/O. VEERABHADRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. VENKATAGIRI 2, PIDIMGOYYAL PANCHAYAT, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PRAGALLAPATI RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O. VEERABHADRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. VENKATAGIRI 2, PIDIMGOYYAL PANCHAYAT, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. PRAGALLAPATI VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. VENKATAGIRI 2, PIDIMGOYYAL PANCHAYAT, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. PRAGALLAPATI PRAVEEN, S/O. VEERABHADRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. VENKATAGIRI 2, PIDIMGOYYAL PANCHAYAT, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE STATE SHO, ARUNDELPET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNA KISHORE BHATRAJU 2. GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DONDAPPAGARI SAI SIDDI SRIKHAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, "the Cr.P.C."), challenging the judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed in Crl.A. No.57 of 2016, whereby the learned Appellate Court confirmed the judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in C.C. No.276 of 2014, acquitting Respondent Nos.1 to 4 of the charges punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the D.P. Act"). 2. Sri G. Naga Satyanarayana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submits that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is not in accordance with the evidence on record. He submitted that the impugned judgment is perverse and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 unsustainable in law. He further therefore prayed that this Court interfere with and set aside the impugned judgment and either remand the matter to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law or pass such other appropriate orders as this Court may deem fit. 3. Mr K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also argued that on the similar lines and submits that appreciation of the evidence is not feasible in exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ inasmuch as the learned Trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution on correct perspective disbelieved the story of the prosecution and acquitted Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Sri D.V.S. Siddi Srikar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, concurred with the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and contended that the judgment confirming the acquittal of the unofficial respondents is valid and in accordance with the principles governing appreciation of evidence. He submitted that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below and no material irregularity warranting interference. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. He further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be re-appreciated at the revisional stage unless the findings suffer from patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in C.C.No.276 of 2014 dated 30.11.2015, passed by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. While deciding a Criminal Revision Case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “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 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 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 o 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 “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 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.” 10. In Mahendra Pratap Singh v Sarju Singh4, at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 it is held as under: “7. In revision, the learned Judge in the High Court went into the evidence very minutely. He questioned every single finding of the learned Sessions Judge and gave his own interpretation of the evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it. He discounted the theory that the weapon of attack was a revolver and suggested that it might have been a shot gun or country made pistol which the villagers in the position of Kuldip and Sarju could not distinguish from a revolver. He then took up each single circumstance on which the learned Sessions Judge had found some doubt and interpreting the evidence de novo held, contrary to the opinion of the Sessions Judge that they were acceptable. All the time he appeared to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution. The only error of law which the learned Judge found in the Sessions Judge's 3AIR 1962 SC 1788 4AIR 1968 SC 707 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 judgment was a remark by the Sessions Judge that the defence witnesses who were examined by the police before they were brought as defence witness ought to have been cross-examined with reference to their previous statements recorded by the police, which obviously is against the provisions of the Code. Except for this error, no defect of procedure or of law was discovered by the learned judge of the High Court in his appraisal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge. As stated already by us, he seems to have gone into the matter as if an appeal against acquittal was before him making no distinction between the appellate and the revisional powers exercisable by the High Court in matters of acquittal except to the extent that instead of convicting the appellant he only ordered his retrial. In our opinion, the learned judge was clearly in error in proceeding as he did in a revision filed by a private party against the acquittal reached in the Court of Session. 8.The practice on the subject has been stated by this Court on more than one occasion, In D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, 1951 SCR 254 = (AIR 1951 SC 196), only two grounds are mentioned by this Court as entitling the High Court to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order a retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. In explaining these two propositions, this Court further states that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. Again, in Logendranath Jha v. Polailal Biswas, 1951 SCR 676 = (AIR 1951 SC 316), this Court points out that the High Court is entitled in revision to set aside an acquittal if there is an error on a point of law or no appraisal of the evidence at all. This Court observes that it is not sufficient to say that the judgment under revision is "perverse" or "lacking in true correct perspective". It is pointed out further that by ordering a retrial, the dice is loaded against the accused, because however much the High Court may caution the Subordinate Court, it is always difficult to re-weigh the evidence ignoring the opinion of the High Court. Again in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 (3) SCR 412 = (AIR 1962 SC 1788), it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. As stated not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court was covered in the present case. In fact on reading the judgment of the High Court it is apparent to us that the learned judge has re-weighed the evidence from his own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions judge on almost every point. This we do not conceive to be his duty in dealing in revision with an acquittal when Government has not chosen to file an appeal against it. In other words, the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 11. In Kotaiah v. G. Venkateshwara5, at paragraph Nos.19, 20 & 21 it is held as under: “19. We are of the opinion that the entire approach made by the High Court in dealing with the Criminal Revision filed against acquittal by the private party is contrary to the principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. Notwithstanding the fact that sub-section (4) of Section 439 does not authorise the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it has in fact contravened this provision by recording a finding of guilt against the accused and directing the Trial Court to convict them after a retrial. There is no question of lack of jurisdiction in the Trial Court to try the case; nor was any attack made that any evidence has been shut out at the trial. Whether the dying declaration, Ext. P. 15, by Ratnababu can be taken into account regarding the attack on Koteswara Rao, is a matter which the Trial Court was entitled to decide one way or the other. If its view was wrong, the High Court could have gone into that aspect and differed from this opinion of the Sessions Court if the State had filed an appeal against acquittal. Further the mere fact that the learned Trial Judge held that this piece of evidence is not relevant, while considering the attack on Koteswara Rao, does not amount to shutting out of evidence at the trial. In fact that evidence had already come on record. Therefore, in this case there has been no shutting out at the trial of any evidence which the prosecution wanted to adduce or the defence wanted to lead. All available evidence has been let in by both the prosecution and the accused. 20. Nor can it be stated that there has been any glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law and consequently leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice. As mentioned earlier, sub-section (4) of Section 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by an indirect method of ordering retrial when the High Court itself cannot directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. The High Court, in our opinion, has missed these very important limitations on its power to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision which could be done only in very exceptional circumstances. In the case on hand, the High Court was not justified in considering the evidence in such detail if it was really going to order a retrial. Such a detailed consideration of evidence and an expression of opinion about the guilt of the accused, in our opinion, has really loaded the dice against the accused when the case goes back for retrial. Much stress has been laid by the High Court that though substantive charges had been framed against the accused read with Section 34 or alternatively with Section 149 5AIR 1973 SC 1274 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 I.P.C. the Trial Court has not recorded any finding in this regard. Here again, the High Court's view is erroneous. We have already referred to the finding recorded by the Trial Court that in view of the definite case of the prosecution and the nature of the evidence, none of the accused can be held constructively liable. It is on that ground that the Trial Court has not found the accused constructively guilty. 21. We have indicated the reasons, which promoted the High Court to order a retrial. The consequence of this will be to put considerable strain on the accused who have already gone through a trial at considerable stress and expense. After going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, we cannot certainly say, particularly in view of the evidence on record that either the acquittal of the twenty-two accused or the acquittal of the eight convicted accused of the rest of the charges was not justified. At any rate, it may be safely stated that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into account all the relevant circumstances. It may be that there are slight mistakes in some of the reasons given by him but the judgment asa whole shows that he has really applied his mind to the various pieces of evidence before passing the order of acquittal in the manner he has done. In the particular circumstances of this case, the interference in revision by the High Court at the instance of the private party was not justified. The two appeals filed by the convicted accused, namely, Criminal Appeals Nos. 201 and 202 of 1969 have not been dealt with by the High Court on merits. The appellants therein have a right to have those appeals heard and disposed of by the High Court according to law.” 12. In Amar Chand v. Shanti Bose 6 at Paragraph No.20 it is held as under: “20. Even assuming that the High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Section 439, in our opinion, the present was not a case for interference by the High Court. The Jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised normally under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, only in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of the justice. The High Court has not found any of these circumstances to exist in the case before us for quashing the charge and the further proceedings.” 6AIR 1973 SC 799 9 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 13. In SatyendraNath v. Ram Narain7 at Paragraph No.16 it is held as under: “16. The High Court has thus transgressed the narrow limits of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of the Sessions Court did not suffer from any manifest illegality and the interests of justice did not require the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. Any fair assessment of the evidence of the eye-witnesses would show that the acquittal of the appellants led to no miscarriage of justice.” 14. In Pathumma v. Muhammad8 at Paragraph No.6 it is held as under: “…We are afraid, the learned Judge of the High Court, committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence and coming to a finding that the appellant No. 2 was not the illegitimate child of the respondent. We have ourselves considered the evidence on record and we agree with the learned Magistrate, who had taken much pains in analysing the evidence, that the appellant No. 2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction was not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact.” 15. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court. Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible. 16. On a careful perusal of the entire judgment of the learned Appellate Court, there is no perversity. There is no flagrant miscarriage of justice and there were no material irregularities. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is required to be upheld by dismissing the Revision Case. 7AIR 1975 SC 580 8AIR 1986 SC 1436 10 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 17. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 22.06.2026 KMS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 11 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1263 of 2019 Dated 22.06.2026 220 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1263/2019 Date: 22.06.2026 KMS