THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.523 of 2004 DATED: 03-06-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 15-02-2002, passed in S.C.No.993 of 2000 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hindupur, Anantapur District. 2. The brief facts are that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner herein, namely Nagaratnamma, took place with the 2nd respondent-A1 in 1999. Subsequently, as A1 to A4-respondents 2 to 5 herein subjected the said Nagaratnamma to mental and physical harassment for additional dowry, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and while she was undergoing treatment in the hospital, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur recorded her dying declaration, wherein she stated that she was caught fire while she was preparing coffee. Police recorded the statement of the said Nagaratnamma and treated the same as complaint, registered the case under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and while undergoing treatment, Nagaratnamma died and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hindupur conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the police arrested A1 to A4. After investigation the police filed charge sheet. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur committed the case to the Court of Sessions in P.R.C.No.44 of 2000. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and ten more witnesses were examined on his behalf and Exs.P.1 to P12 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents-accused. M.Os 1 to 6 were marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 15-02-2002, acquitted the respondents 2 to 5-accused. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. As there was no appeal preferred by the State, the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., filed the present Criminal Revision Case assailing the said judgment. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place on 14-07-2000 and the respondents have faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2002, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 03rd June, 2010. Tsy