Kuppili Jaya Sri v. Kuppili Narasimha Murthy

Order

A report Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, is received stating that the whereabouts of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are not known.

Smt. Ganta. Sridevi, is requested to assist the Court as Legal Aid Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. In this regard, the Secretary, High Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.619 of 2007 Dated 01.07.2025

#3. Heard the Legal Aid Counsel and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

#4. The criminal revision case has been preferred by the de-facto complainant under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the judgment dated 13.02.2007 in Crl.A.No.40 of 2000 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayanagaram, allowing the criminal appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 31.03.2003 in C.C.No.227 of 2000 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayanagaram.

#5. Sri Palaparthi Prabhakar, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, has submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to see the evidence of P.W.1, who stated categorically about the cruelty and demand for additional dowry and that the evidence was supported by P.Ws.2 to 4 and 5, who are mediators and independent witnesses. It was also further submitted that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that on 19.03.2000, a mediation was held in which the respondent No.1 and 2 were present, and they demanded Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) and half of the property of the P.W.2. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court is perverse and suffers from illegality and urged to set aside it and uphold the conviction given by the learned Trial Court.

#6. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor/respondent No.3-State, vehemently argued learned 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.619 of 2007 Dated 01.07.2025 Appellate Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses who supported her and found that the judgment of the learned Trial Court was not consistent with the principles of ‘the Evidence Act 1872 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and set aside the conviction rightly, and urged to dismiss the revision case as there is no scope for re-appreciation of the evidence.

#7. Sri. Ganta Sridevi, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, supports the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and submitted that the learned Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution and disbelieved their evidence and acquitted the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and urged to dismiss the criminal revision case.

#8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

#9. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.40 of 2003 dated 13.02.2007 I Additional Sessions Judge, passed by Vijayanagaram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” learned

#10. While deciding a Criminal Revision Case filed against acquittal of accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.619 of 2007 Dated 01.07.2025 Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.”

#11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in justice require exceptional cases where interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” interests of public

#12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, at Paragraph No.7 held as under: “7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate