THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2150 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the court below against the respondents 1 to 5 herein for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner the court below took cognizance of the same as C.C.No.564 of 2000. During the course of trial, the complainant got herself examined as P.W.1 and she also got examined seven others as P.Ws.2 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The trial court by its judgment dated 27.08.2004 having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused and accordingly acquitted them of the said charge. Questioning the said judgment acquitting the accused, 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 brief averments of the complaint filed by the petitioner is that her marriage was performed with one Chandramohan Reddy who is the son of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.10,000/- cash and 100 grams of gold. It is further averred that after marriage she joined her husband and after one year of the marriage, the respondents started harassing her with a demand to get additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-. However, as her parents expressed their inability the respondents harassed her indiscriminately and ultimately necked out the petitioner and her husband from the joint family. 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 trial 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 trial court that the prosecution/complainant 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. --------------- 24.03.2011 Kvsn