THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1799 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the judgment in C.C.No.50 of 2001 on the file of the court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bapatla, whereby the respondents 1 to 4 herein are acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on the marriage of the de facto complainant by name Aduri Parvathi was celebrated with the first accused on 29.08.1996 at Bapatla. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.2 lakhs towards dowry and other lanchanams and also presented 30 sovereigns of gold and after the marriage she joined her husband at her in laws house. Subsequent to the marriage all the accused used to harass her to bring additional dowry. When she expressed her inability the accused used to beat her. She informed the same to her parents and then her father presented a colour T.V and a refrigerator to the accused. Being not satisfied with the same, the accused used to harass her to bring additional dowry and they also used to utter that they will pour kerosene on her and kill her if she does not bring more dowry. Though the parents of the victim attempted to settle the matter through the elders, the same went in vain. Hence she gave a report to the police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.13 of 2000 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.50 of 2001 by the learned Magistrate. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.9. On behalf of the accused D.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.D.1 to D.22 were marked. The trial court having analysed the entire evidence finally came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences and accordingly acquitted them of the said offences by its judgment dated 01.09.2003. As the State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said judgment, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in the said case filed the present revision. 4 Heard. 5 This revision was admitted on 06.02.2004 and even after six years the notices on the respondents were not served. 6 From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the court below, having gone through all the material aspects, has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. Further, this is a revision under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the jurisdiction of this court is very limited. It is only when any material irregularity has been committed by the court below, this court will interfere and that too this court at best can remand the matter to the court below for fresh disposal. But it cannot give any altogether different finding. 7 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- 28.10.2010 Kvsn