THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1607 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner the Station House Officer, Alwal Police Station, registered a case against the respondents herein and seven others for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.394 of 1998. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. However, on behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. The trial court by its judgment dated 25.03.2003 having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused 3 to 9 of all the charges and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. But, however, the trial court found the respondents 1 and 2 herein guilty of the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC alone and accordingly sentenced the first respondent to suffer imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months and sentenced the second respondent to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Questioning the said judgment dated 25.03.2003 the respondents 1 and 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2003 and the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar while allowing the said appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the respondents 1 and 2. Questioning the said judgment dated 16.06.2004 acquitting the respondents 1 and 2, 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 petitioner was performed with A.1 on 21.05.1995. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- and other lanchanams to the accused out of the agreed amount of dowry of Rs.4 lakhs and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs within two to three years. After the marriage they lived happily for some time. Thereafter all the accused started harassing P.W.1 with a demand of additional dowry. In spite of mediation by the elders and well wishers of both sides, the accused did not mend their attitude and continued to harass P.W.1 with the demand of additional dowry. Having not able to bear with the said harassment, P.W.1 gave a report to the police on 12.06.1996 and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.158 of 1996 and investigated into and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 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 appellate court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the respondents of the said charge. Admittedly there is no other evidence except the evidence of the interested witnesses to record conviction against the respondents. Hence the finding arrived at by the appellate 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