HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1913 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- P.W.1 against the judgment dated 13.06.2003 passed in S.C.No.93 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, acquitting the respondents 2 to 4/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between one Jyothi @ Venkata Jyothi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and Accused No.3 was performed on 13.06.1997 and at the time of marriage, P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, gave an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the accused as dowry. It is stated that one year after the marriage, the accused used to harass and ill-treat the deceased for bringing additional dowry and that unable to bear the said harassment, the deceased committed suicide on 10.01.2000 by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. Subsequently, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before P.W.9 and basing on which a case in Crime No.15 of 2000 was registered and after completion of investigation, P.W.9-the Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order II-Town Police Station, vijayawada, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and that the accused were tried for the said offences. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 and M.Os.1 to 8 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to produce positive, cogent, reliable and corroborative evidence to sustain the theory of commission of offence by the accused, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against the judgment of acquittal under Sections 397 and 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 Court below has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Here in this case, the finding of the Court below is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the said finding needs no interference. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-02-2011 Gsn.