THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No : 860 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment, dated 03-12-2008, passed in S.C.No.529 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found A1-Tellapati Raghavulu and A2-T.Venkayamma not guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A r/w 34 IPC and acquitted them accordingly. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W.1 was married to A1 on 19-04-2000. Their marriage was consummated and a child was born to them. It is the version of the de facto complainant, who is the wife, that her husband and mother-in-law harassed her on the ground of additional dowry. It is the further case of the de facto complainant, who has been examined as P.W.1, that on 09- 11-2002 her husband-A1 attempted to do away her life and the same has been witnessed by P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. She presented a report on 25-12-2003 which formed the basis for registering a case in Cr.No.212 of 2003 under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC. 3. P.W.7-Sub Inspector of police took up investigation, examined the witnesses and filed a charge sheet before VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.13 of 2004 and committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Guntur as the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge took up the case in S.C.No.529 of 2004 and made over the same to the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur for disposal according to law. 4. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused framed, charges under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC, read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. 6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC and acquitted them accordingly by judgment, dated 03-12-2008. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the de facto complainant. 7. Heard both sides. Perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and thereby erred in recording acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 307 and 498- A IPC. A further submission has been made that the evidence of P.W.1 is amply corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.3 to 5 and therefore the respondents 1 and 2 are liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC. 9. In a revision against acquittal, the revisional Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence as vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is liable and therefore to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is possible, appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous. Generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. 10. P.W.1 is the wife of the 2nd respondent herein. She testifies that on 09-11-2002 at about 3.00 p.m. her husband who has been arrayed as A1 attempted to do away her life. She presented the report on 25-12-2003 i.e., nearly after a year of the incident. The accused marked Ex.D1-report, dated 02-10-2003, sent by the de facto complainant-P.W.1. In Ex.D1-report the incident said to have occurred on 09-11-2002 has not been stated. Indeed the trial Court has taken into consideration this aspect to discard the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 regarding the incident said to have been taken place on 09-11- 2002. 11. I may refer the relevant portion of the judgment impugned in this revision which reads as under: “Here no FIR was registered by the police basing on Ex.D1-report given by P.W.1 prior to Ex.P1 which does not contain the allegation of attempt to commit murder and demand of additional dowry. No G.D. entry is made in connection with Ex.D1. P.W.1 clearly stated that she is ready to join the company of A1 even today which goes to show that she is not apprehending any risk in the hands of A1. She also stated that she filed this case only after receipt of notice sent by her husband in divorce O.P. She further stated that had her husband not filed any divorce case she could not have filed the present case. The question of alleged harassment to bring additional dowry, proved to be false by virtue of the evidence of D.W.1, which goes to show that P.W.1 herself had withdrawn the prize money. Whereas P.W.1 says that no amount was deposited in her name in any chit which appears to be quite doubtful. She also filed maintenance case. There is no evidence that A2 demanded P.W.1 to bring additional dowry. As far as corrections in FIR and 161 statements are concerned this Court feels that there is no need to discuss about the corrections etc., by virtue of the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case on material aspects. Hence, Point No.1 is answered against the prosecution by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC”. 12. The evidence of P.W.1 substantially varies with her report as well her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on vital aspects. Therefore I do not see any flaw in appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the trial Court with regard to the incident said to have occurred on 09-11-2002. As to the harassment on the ground of dowry, it has come on record that A1 obtained a chit and the chit amount has been received by the de facto complainant, who has been examined as P.W.1. The trial Court has taken into consideration this aspect to discard the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 as to dowry demands. I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 13. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 04th August, 2009 Tsy