High Court dismissed criminal revision filed under CrPC to set aside trial court's acquittal in a dowry death/harassment case. Bench held no material exists to interfere with trial court's finding and revision lacks merits.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed confirming judgment dated 18.12.2006 in C.C.No.81 of 2005.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 520 OF 2007
Between:
Ravindra Babu. R/o Near Panduranga Kalyana Mandapam, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. ^
...PETITIONER
AND
^ Prakasarn Dift^^'^^^'’ Ragavaiah, R/o Pandaripuram,
Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
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 grounds of h u Judgment in C.C.No.81/05 on the file of the J F C M Sol Mobile Court, Ongole, dated 18.12.06. ’ ^
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJA REDDY KONETI
Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S R SANKU AND KAVITI MURALI KRISHNA The Court made the following:
f
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.520 of 2007
ORDER;
Assailing the judgment dated 18.12.2006 in C.C.No.81of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrateof First Class (Special Mobile Court), Ongole, the petitioner/de facto complainant filed the present criminal revisioncaseunder Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).
- The revision case was admitted on 13.04.2007.
- Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, S.R.Sanku, learnedcounselfor the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/accused and learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor for the 6*^ respondent/State.
- Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in acquitting the respondent Nos.l to 5/accused?
- Perused the entire material on record, the shorn offacts are as follows:
.X'>
2
P.W.l married accused No.l and at the time of marriage, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are parents of P.W.l, given Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and 35 sovereigns of gold to the aceused Nos.l to 3. Then P.W.l and accused No.l lead marital life in the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 as accused No.l is not having any job. After two years accused Nos. 1 to 3 informed that accused No. 1 got a job in Hatchery at Visakhapatnam and to put a separate family at Visakhapatnam, P.Ws.2 and 3 gave house hold articles worth of Rs.30,000/- and they sent Rs.6,000/per month for the expenses. Thereafter, accused No.1 addicted to vices and used to come in drunken state. beat and abused P.W.l and also demanded her for additional dowry from her parents. On which, P.W.l gave a complaint and the same was registered in Cr.No.218 of 2004 of Ongole Taluka Police Station under Section 498-A, 365 and 346 of IPC against the accused.
- After completion of investigation, police laid chargesheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.81 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special I Mobile Court), Ongole. Thereafter P.Ws. 1 to 9 wereexamined
3
before the trial Court. The point that arises before the trial Court for determination was whether accused Nos.l to 4 harassed P.W.l for additional dowry and accused Nos.l to 5 kidnapped P.W. 1 and her children.
- After appreciating the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court found that there is no marital to prove the offences alleged against the accused. In view ofthelackof evidence and the trial Court after considering theentirematerial placed on record found that accused No. 1 to 4 not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A and 365 of IPC and accused No.5 found not guilty for the offence under Section 365 r/w. 109 of IPC. 8. In this context, it is relevant to refer certain pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported inbetween Ganesha v. Sharanappa^, wherein it was held that “inacase 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 attheinstanceof the informant in revision and directing fresh disposalonmerit by the trial court. In the event of such direction,thetrialcourt
(2014) 1 see 87
4
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 theRevisional 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 beenconsidered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the HighCourtin revision can set aside an order of acquittal but itcannotconvert 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.
- Further, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraphNo.12as follows:
“12. ... Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize
2 2002 see (eri) 1448]
5
a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal intooneof conviction. The aforesaid subsection, which places a limitation on the powers of the Revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittalinto one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section401of 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 interferingwithan 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 bythe High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.”
6
3 (2019) 2 see 752
\ \
7
- In view of the above, now, this Court after perusingthe material placed before the trial Court, nothing foundonrecord to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate. This court also perused the law laid down by HonT)le Supreme Court in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh‘S and Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy^, wherein it was clear that in-order to set aside the order of acquittal,there must be some material evidence, thereafter only, theCourtcan set aside the acquittal order, and remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial or even to re-appreciate the evidence.When there is no material on record to find the guilt of the accused, the Revisional Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal.
- Having regard to the above, this Court do not find any material to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Thereby, the present criminal revision has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 18.12.2006 in C.C.No.81 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrateof First Class (Special Mobile Court), Ongole.
'*1962 see Online Se 32 5 2022 LiveLaw (Se) 83
8
/
\
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any.
shall stand closed.
SD/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECTION OFFICER
/ ' /
HIGH COURT
DATED: 18/12/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.520 of 2007
|V^
\M
x>
r/ac
cJVi
slo 3 0 APP 202^ rrttf
O:.7/
Current ijeniion - j A
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSING
2 issues framed by the court
whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in acquitting the respondents
whether there is material evidence to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesha v. SharanappaReferred¶36
Ganesha v. Sharanappa
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of BiharReferred¶40
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. The State of KarnatakaReferred¶46
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. The State of Karnataka
K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶50
K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Joseph Stephen v. SanthanasamyReferred¶50
Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Babu
Prakasam Veeraragavaiah
Chigurupati Veera Ragavaiah
Ragavaiah
Kola Prabhakar Rao
The State of A.P.
SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
