HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.839 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner-defacto complainant against the judgment dated 30.07.2001 passed in C.C.No.323 of 2000 on the file of the learned III-Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, acquitting the respondents 1 to 3-accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner-defacto complainant and A-3 took place on 07.11.1999 and after marriage A2 and A3 started harassing the defacto complainant with the active support and encouragement of A1 for an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs towards dowry. A1 also proclaimed that she will kill the defacto complainant and perform another marriage to her son i.e., Accused No.3. When the matter was raised before the panchayat, it was decided that the defacto complainant and her husband-A3 have to live separately, for which the accused demanded an amount of Rs.80,000/- in the presence of elders. Subsequently, the defecto complainant lodged a complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No. 27 of 2000 was registered under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and the accused were tried for the said offence. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the said offence against the accused and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-defacto complainant preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. 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 corroboration in between the prosecution witnesses with regard to demand of dowry and harassment made by the accused towards the petitioner-defacto complainant and that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty by harassing her both physically and mentally. Hence, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the respondents- accused 1 to 3. 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) 08-07-2010 Gsn.