THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1185 of 2002 DATED: 03-06-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 27-06-2002, passed in S.C.No.395 of 2000 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The brief facts are that the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner herein, namely Vanitha, took place with the 1st respondent-accused on 16-02-2000. Subsequently, as the 1st respondent herein subjected the said Vanitha to mental and physical harassment for additional dowry, she committed suicide by hanging and died. Based on a complaint given by the petitioner herein, the police, S.V.U.Campus police station registered a case in Cr.No.26 of 2000 under Section 304-B IPC and after investigation filed a charge sheet and the case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.34 of 2000 by the learned III Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi and committed to the Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division as the offence under Section 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and eleven more witnesses were examined on his behalf and Exs.P.1 to P9 were marked. Though the respondent has not chosen to examine anybody, marked Ex.D1. M.O.1 was marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 27-06-2002, acquitted the 1st respondent-accused. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 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. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the 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 11, 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 on 18-07-2000 and the respondent has 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. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 03rd June, 2010. Tsy