THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1839 of 2004 ORDER: 1 Questioning the judgment dated 16.07.2004 passed in C.C.No.59 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I class, Special Mobile Court, West Godavari at Eluru, the de facto complainant in the said case who was examined as P.W.1 preferred this revision. 2 The facts that led to file the present revision are that the petitioner herein initially approached the court below and filed a private complaint stating that the marriage of P.W.1 i.e. complainant was performed with the first respondent on 29.07.1993 according to Christian rites and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given towards dowry. The first respondent got extra marital relation with a woman living at Guntur. Ever since the marriage, the first respondent used to harass the complainant for additional dowry and on one occasion he also attempted to kill her by pressing her neck. While so on 08.06.1998 when P.W.1 questioned the first respondent about his illegal intimacy with another woman, the first respondent made an attempt to kill her with a rope and beat her with a stick and necked her out. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.56 of 2001 investigated into the crime and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 352 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. However, the defence could succeed in getting marked Exs.D.1 to D.3 photos. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents for the charged offences and accordingly acquitted them by judgment dated 16.07.2004. As stated supra, questioning the said judgment, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the said findings given by the court below needs no interference. The learned magistrate while appreciating the entire evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents are not guilty of the said offences punishable under sections 498-A, 352 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and under sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which in my considered view, 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 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. 6 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn