THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.876 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 03-04-2002, passed in C.C.No.33 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein is the wife of the 1st respondent herein-A1 and at the time of their marriage, i.e. on 22-05-1994, cash of Rs.45,000/- and 15 tulas of gold were given as dowry to A1 by the parents of the petitioner herein and thereafter, the respondents herein started harassing her physically and mentally demanding additional dowry, and on 22-07-1994 they wrongfully confined her in a room and doused her in kerosene with an intention to kill her. However, her parents came and rescued her. Thereafter, 1st respondent herein-A1 married the 5th respondent herein-A5. Based on a complaint lodged by the petitioner herein a case in Cr.No.29 of 1997 was registered against the respondents 1 to 5 herein for the offences under Sections 494, 498-A r/w 109 IPC and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.33 of 1998. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P4 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 03-04-2002, acquitted the respondents 1 to 5 herein-A1 to A5. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 5. 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. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, 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 in 1994 and the respondents 1 to 5 herein-A1 to A5 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. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy