APHC010331872009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2105/2009 Between: 1. DEVISETTY DHANALAKSHMI, W/O HANUMANTH RAO, H.NO.14-7-14, GUNTURUVARI THOTA, GUNTUR TOWN & DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. NANDIBAKAM VIJAYANTH THE STATE OF A P, S/O SHYAM SUNDER, FIRST LANE, NEHRU NAGAR, GUNTUR. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE (L & )) P.S., GUNTUR. (CR.NO.3/2008). ...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 aggrieved by the Judgment dated 07.10.09 made in Crl.A.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of IX Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -2- CRL.R.C. No.2105 OF 2009 The Court made the following order: 1. Instant criminal revision case has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.10.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur. 2. The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, lodged a report with the police on 12.01.2008 alleging that the first respondent had committed offences punishable under Sections 452, 427, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). On the basis of the said report, the concerned police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2008. After completion of investigation, the police had filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No.45 of 2008 by learned trial court. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses and marked two documents as Exs.P.1 and P.2. No material objects were seized or marked. After hearing the parties, learned trial court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 352, 427 and 506 of I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2009 before learned appellate court. After hearing the parties, learned appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and -3- CRL.R.C. No.2105 OF 2009 sentence imposed by learned trial court. Hence, the present criminal revision case has been preferred by the de facto complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate court is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. He submits that learned appellate court failed to appreciate the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, instead, erroneously acquitted the accused. He further submits that learned appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of P.W.7 as well as the evidence of the independent witnesses, hence the judgment of acquittal may be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate court. 6. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused had fallen in love with the daughter of P.W.1. It is alleged that the accused took away the daughter of P.W.1, claiming that she was his wife. Thereafter, when she was brought back, P.W.1, in order to avoid further disturbance, kept her daughter at another place without informing the accused about her whereabouts. On 11.01.2008 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused is alleged to have -4- CRL.R.C. No.2105 OF 2009 forcibly entered the house of P.W.1 and created havoc by damaging household articles and threatening P.W.1 and the other persons present in the house, while demanding whereabouts of the daughter of P.W.1 be disclosed. It is further alleged that he created panic among P.W.1 and the women present in the house. 7. During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses P.Ws.3 and 6 are the relatives of P.W.1, whereas P.W.7 is stated to be a tenant. On a careful consideration of their evidence, learned appellate court found material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Learned appellate court further observed that, though the prosecution alleged that the accused had created havoc by damaging household articles, the police did not seize any such articles. No scene observation mahazar or panchanama was prepared by the police. Though P.W.6 stated that the accused had appeared with a sharp knife and threatened to kill P.W.1, the said version was not corroborated by the other witnesses. 8. Learned appellate court ultimately came to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and that there was previous enmity between P.W.1 and the accused, giving rise to a possibility of false implication. The observations of learned appellate court are on the basis of prosecution witnesses. Learned -5- CRL.R.C. No.2105 OF 2009 appellate court, at paragraphs 21 to 27 of the impugned judgment, has categorically considered the probative value of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, upon scanning the entire evidence, recorded its findings which resulted acquittal of accused. 9. In a revision against an order of acquittal, this Court cannot interfere merely because another view is possible unless there exist grave illegality and perversity which materially caused miscarriage of justice. In this case this court finds no justification to interfere with the observation of learned appellate court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.10.09.2026 BV