D. Venkateswarlu v. Gajulavan Sandhu

Sanivarapupeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. Sri Nowduri Chandra Rao, S/o. Venkaiah Palgudem, West Godavari District. Sri Nowduri Jayalakshmi, W/o. Naga Muni Raiu Aae- 40 vears Sanivarapupeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. ^ ^

#5. Hindu, Age: 63 years, R/o. 43 years, R/o. Hindu, Age: 29 R/n °- ’ ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Mrs. D. SANGEETHA REDDY The Court made the following (DRDER: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1149 of 2009 ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the judgment dated 31.03.2009 in S.C.No.167 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, finding the accused/Respondent Nos.2 to 5 not guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and are acquitted under Section 235 (1)of ‘the Cr.P.C’.

#2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

#3. As the Counsel engaged by the Petitioner was not appearing despite several adjournments were granted, this Court was constrained to direct the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru Sub-Division to cause serve notice on the Petitioner requiring him either to give instructions to his Counsel or appoint another Counsel. Even though such notice was received by the Petitioner, he did not choose to engage a Counsel. Hence, this Court was constrained to direct to appoint a legal Aid Counsel as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khaili v. State of U.P\ Mangat Singh v. State of Punjab^ and Shankar v. State of Maharashtra^. ^Criminal Appeal No, 137 of 1980 dt. 18.2,1980 ^2005 (11) see 185 =2019 (2) ALI (eRl.) (Se) 460 (D.B). 2 Dr.YLR.J Crl.R.C.No.1149 of 2009 Dated 28.04.2025

#4. Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned Legal Aid Counsel, while reiterating the grounds of revision, submitted that even though the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused/Respondent Nos.2 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate it and erroneously acquitted the respondents; there was no improvement in the evidence of RWs.1 to 4 with regard to the harassment caused by the Respondent Nos.2 to 5; witnesses of the prosecution had not deposed beyond their statements recorded under Section 161 of ‘the Cr.RC.’; evidence of R.W.7, who is independent witness. was not properly appreciated; evidence of R.Ws.4 to 7 clearly disclosed that the deceased telephoned them on the date of the incident expressing peril to her life in the hands of Respondent Nos.2 to 5; in that regard the learned Trial Court failed to apply the presumption under Section 113 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity ‘the Act’); the learned Trial Court committed relying on Ex.D6, ignoring the credible oral evidence of the prosecution witness; without sending Ex.D6 to the experts for comparison, relying on Ex.D6 is irregular and erroneous; the learned Trial Court erred in giving much credence to the answer given by the A1/Respondent No.2 to the question No.47 in the course of Section 313 examination and disbelieving the case of the prosecution; the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the deceased died in the house of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 within seven years from the date of her marriage and applicability of the Section 113 of ‘the Act’; the 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.1149 of 2009 Dated 28.04.2025 learned Trial Court ignored the medical record and also the evidence of 3 Doctor.

#5. It is eventually argued that the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offence under Section 304(B) of ‘the I.RC.; or at least under Section 306 of ‘the I.RC.,’ or under Section 498(A) of ‘the I.RC.’; the judgment suffers from material irregularity, flagrant violation of justice; there is miscarriage of justice done to the Petitioner as the judgment is not sustainable, the judgment is liable to be interfered and set aside as it is improper, unsustainable, erroneous and illegal and the accused are liable to the punished under Section 304 (B) of ‘the I.RC.,’ or under Section 306 of ‘the I.RC.,’ or under Section 498(A) of ‘the I.RC’; and it urged to remand the case for fresh consideration by the learned Trial Court.

#6. Per contra, Sri Md.Ismail, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sangeetha Reddy, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 argued that there are irregularities much less material irregularities; no flagrant miscarriage of justice; no manifest error on point of law and that urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

#7. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, supported the judgment and urged to dismiss the revision as there was no scope for convicting and sentencing the Respondents.

#8. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 4 Dr.YLR.J Crl.R.C.No.1149of 2009 Dated 28.04.2025

#9. Now the point for consideration is; “Whether the judgment in S.C.No.167 of 2006 dated 31.03.2009, passed by the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its or judgment, and there are any material finding, irregularities? And to what relief?” sentence,

#10. It is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar^ wherein at Paragraph Nos. 12 & 13 it is held as under; “12. ...We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the information under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial, njs well settled bv a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illeqality or the prevention of gross miscarriaae of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It Is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. ...

#13. In the absence of anv legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to intetfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re- aooreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial the absence of manifest illeoalitv resulting In grave Court. In '‘(2002) 6 see 650 5 Dr.YLR.J Crl.R.C.No.1149of2009 Dated 28.04.2025 miscarriage cases is not warranted. of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such

#11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla^ 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 acguittal, against which the Govt, has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice reguire or the interference 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. correction of a manifest illegality, for the

#12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP®, 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 acguittal even at the instance of private parties, though th e State may not have thought fit to appeal: but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional in our opinion cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and conseguently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a Hiah Court from converting a finding of acguittal 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 acguittal into on e of conviction bv the indirect method of ordering retrial whenjt cannot itself directly convert a finding of acguittal into a findinq of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to is only in set aside a 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, of this kind which would in our opinion justify indicate some cases the High Court in interfering with a finding of acguittal in revision. These cases mav be: where the trial court has no lurisdiction to try but has still acouitted the accused, or where the trial court the case revision and it of acguittal in finding .. . . ORDER CRLRC.No.1149 of 2009 gT 0 "I SEP 2025 i Co DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE