HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.93 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner-defacto complainant (P.W.1) against the judgment dated 09.10.2009 passed in S.C.No.656 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur, acquitting the 1st respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that one Bala Praneetha (hereinafter referred to as deceased) and the accused were studying 1st year M.Sc. Bio-chemistry in OTRI campus, J.N.T.U., Anantapur at the time of alleged offence. The accused used to insist the deceased to love him by way of sending messages to her mobile phone, as well as in person during college hours. The deceased informed to her father (P.W.1) about the harassment caused to her by the accused and then P.W.1 and the paternal uncle of the deceased telephoned the accused and admonished him. While so, on 07.03.2008 at about 10.30 A.M. while the deceased was in the Laboratory of the college with other students, the accused went to the deceased and asked her to love him. When the deceased refused him, he sliced his left wrist with blade in the presence of other classmates. Then the deceased, who was vexed with her life due to the harassment of the accused, went to the hostel and committed suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan with her chunny. Subsequently, the father of the deceased (P.W.1) lodged a complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No. 45 of 2006 of Anantapur II Town Police Station was registered under Section 306 of I.P.C. and the accused was tried for the said offence. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the 1st respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-defacto complainant preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Since the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, preferred this revision. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, held that there is no evidence available on record to show that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the 1st respondent- accused. Apart from the above discussion, this Court is cautious of the fact that this is a revision against acquittal and the scope of the revision against acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Such an interference is not automatic and shall be in rarest of rare cases. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this revision is not one of such rarest of rare cases where such interference is required. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 04-10-2010 Gsn.