Revision petition filed by defacto-complainant against acquittal of accused charged under IPC Sections 307 and 506. Court held it cannot alter acquittal to conviction; dismissed revision due to lack of procedural irregularities.
Revision petition dismissed as finding of acquittal stands confirmed.
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 OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1371 of 2010
DATE:02.08.2010
Between:
Bandari Pochamma …… Petitioner And: Sandela Ramu @ Ramulu and others
…..Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1371 of 2010
ORDER :
The defacto-complainant seeks to file this revision petition against finding of acquittal by order dated 22.05.2010 recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon in S.C. No.413 of 2009. In view of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C, while entertaining a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C this Court cannot alter a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The petitioner did not point out any irregularities in procedure during trial conducted by the lower Court.
2) The accused/respondents 1 to 3 were charged in the lower Court for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 307 I.P.C. The prosecution witnesses mainly focussed their attention on the sexual affair between the petitioner and A-1. P.Ws-4 to 6 and 8 to 11 turned hostile to the prosecution case. It is alleged that the accused set fire to her clothes, beat her and
threatened to kill her. The prosecution did not mark any burnt clothes of the petitioner. There is no medical evidence regarding the petitioner/P.W-1 sustaining any burn injuries or any other injuries in that transaction. The lower Court after considering evidence of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not make out the alleged offences under Sections 307 and 506 I.P.C. There are no grounds in law to interfere with the said finding of fact arrived at by the lower Court.
3) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 2, 2010 KSH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court under Sections 397 Cr.P.C and 401(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether any procedural irregularities exist to warrant interference with the acquittal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bandari Pochamma
Sandela Ramu @ Ramulu
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
