In a criminal revision against an acquittal on Section 306 IPC, the High Court held it cannot alter the acquittal to conviction under Cr.P.C. Section 397. No failure of justice was found.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1361 OF 2010
Between:
Pillalamarri Janamma
… PETITIONER
State of Andhra Pradesh and others
… RESPONDENTS
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1361 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the de facto complainant, who is mother of the deceased, against finding of acquittal recorded by judgment, dated 30.06.2008, by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. The respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 are accused of offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. in the lower Court. After full-fledged trial, the lower Court acquitted A1 and A2 of the said offence. This Court while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., cannot alter the finding of acquittal into one of conviction, as the Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. A1 is wife of Bangaraiah, PW.2. It is alleged that after her marriage, A1 started insisting the deceased Narsimha and his mother - PW.1 to live separately and to stop his studies and that A2, who is brother of A1, was supporting A1 and that unable to bear humiliation and abetment of A1 and A2, the deceased committed suicide on 29.03.2006 by hanging himself to the ceiling fan at his house.
3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the lower Court did not discuss evidence of PW.3 with regard to the circumstances leading to suicide of the deceased. The lower Court had gone through evidence of PW.3 in detail and held that the prosecution allegations do not constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. When it is a matter relating to assessment of evidence, this Court in this revision petition cannot re-undertake the same. It may be done in case the prosecution is going to file any appeal against acquittal. As the matter now stands, in this revision petition the petitioner could not point out any procedural irregularity resulting in failure of justice. Thus, there are no grounds in this revision petition to interfere with order of acquittal recorded by the lower Court.
4. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 03, 2010 MD
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1361 OF 2010
August 03, 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can alter an acquittal finding to conviction in a criminal revision.
Whether the revision petitioner pointed out any procedural irregularity resulting in failure of justice.
Pillalamarri Janamma
State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
