IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 336 of 2005 Between: Smt. Savithri … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & 4-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 336 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner-defacto complainant against the conviction and sentence passed by the II- Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Ongole in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2004 dated 16-11-2004 in acquitting the petitioners by reversing the conviction and sentenced inflicted on the petitioners- accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri, through judgment dated 16-4-2004 in CC.No. 104 of 1999. 2. The respondents 2 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 509 and 352 of IPC. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and acquitted them under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under section 509 and 352 of IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced the respondents 2 to 5 to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under section 498-A of IPC. On appeal, the learned II-Additional and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ongole, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate as stated hereinabove. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 4. On perusal of the record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents 2 to 5 on the ground that the allegations mentioned in the complainant are not in consonance with the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the evidence adduced does not disclose the offence under section 498-A of IPC. Further it is pertinent to note that the second respondent filed a divorce petition even prior to the filing of the complaint i.e., in the year 1997 and whereas the complaint lodged by the petitioner in the year 1998 alleging that the second respondent and his relations are demanding dowry and causing nuisance to the petitioner. The appellate court disbelieved the evidence and acquitted the respondents 2 to 5. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge do not suffer from any perversity and the same is comprehensively well considered and hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 22-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 336 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 99 Date: 22-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L