IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 of 2004 Between: Vardhineedi Malathi ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1422 of 2004 ORDER: On the basis of a report submitted by the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2001. After investigation a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.87 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, against the respondent Nos.2 to 5/accused herein for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.5. Per contra, the accused examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.D.1 to D.8. Having assessed the said evidence let in during the course of trial, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC; and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the accused have approached the Sessions Court and filed Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2003 and the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsapur, by his judgment dated 24.05.2004, while allowing the said appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused and acquitted them. The State i.e. the Sub-Inspector of Police who was the complainant did not choose to file any appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate Court as provided under Section 378 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioner, at whose instance the said criminal proceedings have been initiated, approached this Court and filed this revision. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents 3 and 4 (A2 and A-3) are parents and 5th respondent (A-4) is sister of the 2nd respondent (A-1); the marriage of petitioner/P.W.1 with A-1 was performed on 16.08.1998; and the parents of P.W.1 gave dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam apart from 100 sovereigns of gold and 12 Kgs of silver articles to the accused. When P.W.1 was sent to the house of the A-1 to lead marital life, they looked after her well for the initial one month and thereafter started harassing her demanding to bring money by selling the agricultural land which was given by her parents. It also came to light that A-1 was not a postgraduate as was stated at the time of marriage, but failed in S.S.C. examination. When P.W.1 informed the ill-treatment and harassment being subjected to her, her father, who was examined as P.W.2, brought P.W.1 to his house. Thereafter, when P.W.1 gave a report to the police and when the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsapur, called the accused, they told that they would look after P.W.1 well in future and that they would set up a separate family for P.W.1 and A-1 in Amalapuram but kept them in a cigarette godown. Subsequently, P.W.1 and A-1 were taken to the house of accused in Kothapeta of East Godavari District and against started questioning P.W.1 as to how she gave report against them and on one day A-1 to A-4 caught hold of P.W.1 and A-3 and A-4 burnt her left hand with an iron spoon. When P.W.2 came to the house of the accused and questioned them as to why they burnt the hand of P.W.1 the accused stated that they burnt it in fit of angry and promised to look after her well in future. Subsequently, the accused shifted the family along with P.W.1 to Palakol and there also they started harassing and demanding P.W.1 to sell away the agricultural land and bring money and, in the month of April 2001, they necked her out of the house and as such she came to the house of P.W.2 at Narsapur. As the accused came to the house of P.W.2 on 20.04.2001, beat her and threatened to cause her death, P.W.1 submitted a report to the police and the police registered the same as Crime No.41/2001, investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Having considered the judgment of the lower appellate Court and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons in holding that the accused are not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC. Further, it shall be remembered that this is a revision against a judgment of acquittal by the lower appellate Court and the scope in a revision of this nature is very much limited. Even if this Court were to hold that the accused are guilty of the offences for which they were tried, the maximum that can be done is to remit the case back to the lower appellate Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law, but this Court cannot impose any sentence reversing the judgment of the lower appellate Court. In as much as the offence alleged is of the year 2001, at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 30th July 2010 CVRK