HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No. 167 of 2003 Date: 15-06-2010 Between: Yamarthi Srinivasa Rao ………….. petitioner And Gali Sankar Rao and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No. 167 of 2003 ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed against the Judgment, dated 11-10-2002 passed in S.C.No.243 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the Accused/Respondents 1 to 3 herein were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: One Gali Rajya Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was given in marriage to A-1 about 3 ½ years prior to 12-05-1997 and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid towards pasupu kumkuma and presented ear studs, silver leg chains and some other household articles to the deceased. After two months of the marriage, A-1, with connivance of A-2 and A-3, started harassing the deceased and subjected her to cruelty in order to bring more money. The parents of the deceased were paying money to the Accused from time to time. When A-1 put up video shop by taking a house on rent and was living with the deceased, A-2 and A-3 were visiting the house of A-1 and harassing the deceased mentally and physically for bringing more money. While so, in the month of January, 1997, A-1 went to PW-1 and demanded Rs.6,000/- for purchasing video camera and when PW-1 refused to pay the amount, A-1 threatened him with dire consequences. On 11-05-1997, when the deceased and A-1, after attending the marriage function of the younger brother of A-1, returned to their house by 8-00 PM, A-1 quarrelled with the deceased and abused her. On the same day at about 11-00 PM, PWs.3 to 5 and 8, on hearing the cries of the deceased, found the deceased coming out of her house by opening the doors with burning flames on her body followed by A-1, who was uttering “naa kompa munchave”. PWs.3 to 5 put off the flames and took the deceased in a rickshaw for treatment to the hospital of PW-11, who advised to shift the deceased to the Government Hospital. Accordingly, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Vinukonda. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to burn injuries after stating to PWs.3 to 5 that she committed suicide due to the harassment of the Accused for more dowry amount. 3. Thereafter, a report was given to the Vinukonda Police Station, which was registered Crime No.55 of 1997 for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306, 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-29 besides case property i.e., M.Os.1 to 3. On defence side, none were examined and no documents were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence on record, found the Accused not guilty and acquitted them as stated above. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the material placed on record. 6. It is well settled by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal by a competent Court, the Revisional Court, while deciding the issue of revision, has to take into consideration the following aspects: 1. Whether there is apparent error on the face of the record; 2. Whether there is substantial illegality committed by the lower Court. 3. Whether there is any perversity in deciding the issue; The Apex Court further held that when two views are possible from the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the competent Court considered one view, which is in favour of the Accused, and acquitted the Accused, there is no need for the Revisional Court to once again appraise the evidence and to decide the issue. 7. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that, after careful analysis of the evidence and other material on record, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, the same is liable to be confirmed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in all respects. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 15-06-2010 YCR