THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.206 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 The petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, gave report to the Station House Officer, Tuni P.S. stating that the first respondent herein married the deceased by name Nagam Siva Rani in June 1986 and that at the time of marriage, P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and two acres of land and 10 tulas of gold. Not being satisfied with the said dowry and articles, the first respondent used to harass the deceased for motor cycle at one time and for additional dowry at another point of time. The deceased endured the harassment with utmost patience and begot two daughters by name Haritha and Pravallika. Though the children are growing, the first respondent intensified his harassment towards the deceased both physically and mentally and used to instigate her to commit suicide. As a result of the harassment and abetment, the deceased committed suicide on 20.10.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. in bathroom by dousing herself with kerosene and set herself ablaze after leaving a note addressed to her parents to the effect that the first respondent herein was responsible for her death. In that connection a case in Cr.No.115 of 2002 was registered by Tuni Police and after investigation the police filed the charge sheet. The same was taken on file as S.C.No.132 of 2003 by the court below for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 2 During the course of trial the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as P.w.1 to 12 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.18 ad M.Os.1 to 4. The court below having assessed the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences and accordingly acquitted him. As against the said judgment dated 13.11.2003, since the State has not chosen to file any appeal, the father of the deceased who was examined as P.W1 in the said case has filed this revision. 3 Heard. 4 Having gone through the entire material available on record, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference. As seen from the record, the case of the prosecution is clouded with so many suspicions and so also there are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So, from the material available on record it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the first respondent for the alleged offences and accordingly the court below, having gone through all the material aspects, has rightly acquitted the first respondent/accused. 5 Further, this is a revision against acquittal preferred under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C under which the jurisdiction of this court is very limited. It is only when any material irregularity has been committed by the court below, this court will interfere and that too this court at best can remand the matter to the court below for fresh disposal. But it cannot give any altogether different finding. 6 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- 10.11.2010 Kvsn