APHC010358172007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 17/2007 Between: 1. SHAIK NISSAR FATHIMA, W/O.SHAIK NASEER, D/O SYED KHAIRATHI, R/O TALUK POLICE QUARTERS, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SHAIK NAZEER, S/O KHADAR MASTAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, H.C.362 KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DIST. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC 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 Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment of the Court of the IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur, dt. 23.01.06 passed in Crl.A.No. 309/04. IA NO: 1 OF 2006(CRLRCMP 1178 OF 2006 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Judgment in S.C.No. 869/2000, dt. 22.07.04 on the file of the Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Guntur. -2- CRL.R.C. No.17 OF 2007 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY PASUNOOR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. - 2. KOPPARTHI SUMATHI 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) -3- CRL.R.C. No.17 OF 2007 The Court made the following order: Present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against judgment and order dated 23.01.2006 passed by learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur in Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2004. 2. Brief facts of the matter: The petitioner has lodged a report against 1st respondent to the police vide Ex.P.1 on 16.10.1998 under Section 498-A IPC. Marriage between petitioner and 1st respondent was held on 16.07.1990, out of wedlock between them, a male child (PW.5) was born. On the basis of the said report, charge sheet was filed. Calendar case was initiated before learned Magistrate and found the 1st respondent was guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and convicted him. Against which, 1st respondent filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and conviction against the 1st respondent. Hence, the instant criminal revision case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court is improper and illegal. Learned appellate Court failed to take note of evidences of PWs.1 to 5, those are corroborative in nature and consistent with respect to the allegations of cruelty and torture. He further submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to observe justified finding of trial Court’s order of conviction but illegally set aside inspite of consistent -4- CRL.R.C. No.17 OF 2007 evidences of PWs.1 to 5. He further submits that evidence of PW.5, who is the child witness and son of petitioner and 1st respondent, stated about an incident of torture inflicted by 1st respondent upon her mother/petitioner. He again argued that the order of conviction passed by learned Magistrate is with valid reasons, the said order of conviction cannot be set aside. Hence, he prayed for necessary order. 4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the learned appellate Court has considered different errors in the prosecution case, there is delay of six months in reporting the matter. Learned appellate Court has also scanned the evidences of PWs.1 to 5, veracity of witnesses are also take care of. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned appellate Court has assigned the reasons in paragraphs 32 to 36 for passing order of acquittal. There is no reason to believe the evidence of prosecution. Accordingly, impugned order is justifiable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court. 7. On careful perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned appellate Court has set aside the order of conviction of learned Magistrate, basically on two grounds; firstly, there is delay of six months in lodging FIR. Learned appellate Court has found no explanation from the side of the -5- CRL.R.C. No.17 OF 2007 prosecution regarding such inordinate delay. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in considering the peculiar nature of crime under Section 498-A IPC, PW.1 always tried to reconcile the matter to save her family, for that reason the delay was occurred. For justifying the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the evidences of the prosecution, I find nothing on that point regarding the explanation of delay of six months in lodging FIR. In perusing paragraph 35 of impugned judgment, it appears that the learned appellate Court has categorically pointed that the evidence of PW.1 has no corroboration to Ex.P1 Report. The factum of reason of torture is totally disbelievable as Ex.P1 report is inconsistencies with evidence of PW.1. I further perused the observation of the learned appellate Court that he did not believe the evidence of PW.5 (child witness) (son of parties) who has disclosed a fact of pouring kerosene oil over PW.1 but PW.1 in report (Ex.P1) or her statement or her evidence never stated such factum. Learned appellate Court has disbelieved the statement of PW.5 on that point, I find no justification to hold that the observation of the learned appellate Court is improper. When there is an exaggeration of the evidence for prosecution witness, it is impossible to believe those prosecution witnesses. 8. It further appears that basis of torture for giving sale consideration of some land was also pointed out in this case. Learned appellate Court has held that the factum of torture, which is the claim of sale consideration of a land, was also not properly proved beyond reasonable doubt. -6- CRL.R.C. No.17 OF 2007 9. Considering the entire aspect, I find no illegality and impropriety in the order passed by the learned appellate Court, learned appellate Court has properly scanned the evidences on record. There is no illegality in finding by the learned appellate Court in scanning the evidences, thereby, the observation of the learned appellate Court appears to me justified. I find no merit in the instant criminal revision. 10. Accordingly, instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 07.09.2026 SPP -7- CRL.R.C. No.17 OF 2007 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 17 of 2007 Dated 07.09.2026 SPP