IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 109 OF 2010 Criminal Appeal Under Section 378 (3) & (1)Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1 1-09-2008 in C.C. No. 219 ot 2004 on the file of the Court of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ( Mahila Court ) at Hyderabad. Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh rep Hyderabad. AND by its Public Prosecutor, High Courl of A.P., ...APE LLANT/ Petitioner '1 . V.Rajeshwar, A-1 , S/o. V.Chitti Baburao R/o. Flat No.81 , Siddarthanagar, Hyderabad. 2. V.Chitti Babu, A-2, S/o. V.K. Ramabrahmam, R/o. Flat No.8'1, Siddarthanagar, Hyderabad. 3. Smt. V.Tara, A-3, S/o. V.Chitti Baburao, R/o. Flat No.81, Siddarthanagar, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. VASANTHA RAYUDU The Court made the following: ORDER ,/ .. Accused /RESPODENT CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 109 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeat is fited under Section 378 (3) and (1) Cr.P.C. by the State, chattenging the judgment, dated 11.09.2008 passed in C.C.No.219 of 2004 on the fite of the Xlll Additionat Chief Metropotitan Magistrate (Mahita Court), Hyderabad, wherein the accused were acquitted for the offences punishabte under Sections 498-A of l.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 . For the sake of convenience, the parties witI hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.3 was performed with A-1 on 27.03.2002 as per hindu rites and customs at Hyderabad. At the time of marriage, P.W.1, who is the father of P.W.3, gave cash of Rs.40,000/-, diamond ring and other sitver artictes and ctothes worth Rs.1.50 takhs. lmmediately after the marriage, P.W.3 joined A-1 and they tived together for about 23 days. During that period, a[[ the accused harassed P.W.3 both physicatly and mentatty to get her share in her father's property and to bring the sa[e proceeds by disposing of it. When the same was informed, P.W.1 promised to futfit their demand after his retirement from the service. A-1 and P.W.3 went for honeymoon, there atso A-1 harassed P.W.3 on one pretext or the other and atso beat her and he a[so threatened thEijT she becomes handicap, he HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 2 woutd get pens'ion of 600 dottars in Austratia for handicap wife, so P.W.3 got frightened. Subsequently, A-1 teft for U.5.A. promising to get a Visa to her but he faited to do the same and he atso used to abuse her in fitthy language on phone and also threatened her to give divorce. On 10.10.2002, atl of a sudden, she received a petition for dissolution of the marriage fited by A-1 from the Superior Court of Catifornia and wherr A-1 was trying for his second marriage at the instigation of A-2 and A-3. Basing on these attegations a charge sheet came to be fited, which was taken on file as C.C.No.219 of 2004. On appearance of the accused, the materiat was perused and on being satisfied, charges under Section 498-4 of l.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, '1961 were framed, read over and exptained to the accused in tetugu, to which they pteaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ln support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. After ctosure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. exptaining the incriminating material availabte on record, but the same was denied by the accused. Neither orat nor documentary evidence was produced on behatf of the accused. After anatyzing the evidence availabte on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Chattenging the same the appea[ is fited by the state. Heard both sides and perused the record. , Learned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor appearing for the appettant-State contended that the judgment of the triat Court is against [aw, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the triat Judge faited to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused woutd submit that the prosecution faited to estab[ish the guitt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the accused were rightty acquitted by the trial Court. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment of acquittat recorded by the triat Court is sustainabte in [aw? ln case of appeat against acquittal the scope of appeal is circumscribed by timitation. Untess the approach of lower Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by manifest iLtegatity or conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse, no interference with the order of acquittal is permissibte. ln t{rinol Dos Vs. Stote of Tripural the Apex Court hetd as under: It is ctear that in an appeat against acquitta( in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeat is heard by an appetlate court, being the fina[ court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. ln other words, ' (2ol l) 9 scc 479 4 law does not prescribe any t]mitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appe[[ate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping jn mind that acquittat provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is avaitable to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent untess he is proved guitty by the competent court. lf two reasonable views are possibte on the basis of the evidence on record, the appel[ate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no [imitation on the part of the appettate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittat is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appettate court can atso review the conclusion arrived at by the triaI Court with respect to both facts and law. White deating with the appeal against acquittat preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appetLate court to marshaI the entire evidence on record and onty by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with onty when there are "competling and substantiaI reasons" for dorng so. lf the order is "clearty unreasonable", it is a competling reason for jnterference. When the tnal Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents tike dying dectaration / report of baltistic experts etc., the appeltate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materiats ptaced. ln lvlaloth Somaroju Vs. State of Andhra prodesh2 the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merety because the acquittat is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittat cannot be upset. The appettate Court has more and serious responsibitity white deating with the judgment of acquittal and untess the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at atl supportable and where the appeuate Court comes to the conctusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittat cannot be upset. The appettate Court has to examine as ' (2or r) 8 scc 635 5 to whether the trial Court, white upsetting the acquittat, has taken such care. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses and among them, the evidence of p.Ws.1 and 3 is identical, P.W.2 is the brother of p.W.3 and son of p.W.1 and P.Ws.4 and 5 are the lnvestigating Officers. A perusal of the evidence on record woul.d show that the marriage between P.W.3 and A-1 was taken ptace on 27.O3.ZO0Z and subsequentty on 23.04.2A02 itsetf A-.1 teft for U.S.A. and p.W.3 [eft for Austratia, therefore, it is clear that A-1 and p.W.3 tived together for less than a month. P.W.3 admitted in her cross_ examination that even she obtained divorce against her second husband, so it is ctear that she married for second time after her marriage with A-1 and also obtained divorce from her second husband. The evidence further disctoses that A-1 obtained divorce in U.S.A. against P.W.3, so the marital tie between p.W.3 and A-1 came to an end even prior to p.W.1 todging Ex.p2 report. p.Ws.4 and 5 are the lnvestigating Officers, who deposed onty with regard to the registration of F.l.R. basing on the report under Ex.pl, examining the witnesses and fiting charge sheet etc. There is no independent corroboration to the evidence of p.Ws.l and 3 to establish the guitt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged. The tria[ Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for not accept'ing the evidence of p.Ws.1 to 3. ldo not j / t 6 find any vatid ground to interfere with the reasons assigned by the triaI Court in discarding the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. ln view of the Judgments referred to above and having regard to the facts and circumstances qf the case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeat and the same is tiabte to be dismissed. ,Accordingly, the appeaI is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 'l 1.09.2008 passed in C.C.No.219 of 2004 on the file of the Xlll Additionat Chief MetropoLitan Magistrate (Mahita Court) at Hyderabad. As a sequeI thereto, Miscettaneous Petitions, if any, pending shatI stand closed. Sd/.K.SREENIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I ()ry SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ( Mahila Court ) at Hyderabad. ( with records) 2. Two GCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 3. One CC to SRl. c VASANTHA RAYUDU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ GSDJ DATED:0810212021 ORDER CRLA.No.109 of 2010 DISN,I ISS ING THE CRL.APPEAI, '1 2 7 tEB 2021 * '!. rA s t t{ 1 z C't 9r." !-\ o HIGH COURT L