THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.836 of 2004 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a complaint given by the petitioner herein a case in Cr.No.79 of 2002 was registered against the first respondent herein and another for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was also filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.258 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adilabad. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On behalf of defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were marked and Ex.D.1 was marked. The trial court having assessed the said evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the 2nd accused and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge. However, the trial court found the first respondent guilty of the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the said offence. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 31.10.2003, the first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2003 and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Adilabad by his judgment dated 08.03.2004 allowed the said appeal and set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial court on the first respondent. Questioning the same, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 2 The facts in brief are that the marriage of the petitioner was celebrated with the first respondent on 09.05.2001 and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.1 lakh cash and a motor cycle towards dowry. Three months subsequent to the marriage, her husband and father-in-law harassed the petitioner for want of additional dowry and that her husband i.e. first respondent also beat her and threatened her to get more dowry. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the said findings given by the court below needs no interference. The learned Sessions Judge while re-appreciating the entire evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is not guilty of the said offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against an order of acquittal under sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, under which the scope and jurisdiction of this court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this court in rarest of rare cases when the lower court has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. That too, even if the court below commits any error apparent this court at best can remand the matter the matter to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether finding. Here in this case, the finding of the court below is based on sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, and hence, the said finding needs no interference. Accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn