THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1252 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner the Station House Officer, Orvakal Police Station, Kurnool District registered a case against the first respondent herein and another for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After committal, the same was taken on file as S.C.No.57 of 2003. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 and 2. However, on behalf of the defence, though no oral evidence was adduced, Ex.B.1 was marked. The trial court by its judgment dated 12.03.2004 having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the second accused therein and accordingly acquitted her. But, however found the first accused guilty of the charged offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and seven years for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC respectively. Questioning the said judgment acquitting the second accused, though the State has not chosen to file any appeal, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of the victim Chandra Kalavathi who was the daughter of P.Ws.1 & 2 was performed with A.1 on 31.12.1998 and after the marriage they lived happily for six months. Thereafter her husband i.e. A.1 started harassing the victim with the active connivance of his mother i.e. A.2 with a demand of additional dowry and ultimately he drove the victim out of the house. P.W.1 again took her to the house of the accused promising that he would pay the demanded amount. But on 05.07.2002 at 8.00 p.m. the victim having not able to bear with the harassment meted out by the accused, committed suicide. In that connection a case in Cr.No.62 of 2002 was registered by Orvakal P.S. for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304- B of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the considered view that the trial court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the first respondent of the said charges. Admittedly there is no other evidence except the evidence of the interested witnesses to record conviction against the first respondent. Hence the finding arrived at by the trial court that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt 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 to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether different 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. 5 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. --------------- 17.02.2011 Kvsn