THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.688 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner, who is the defacto complainant is questioning the correctness of the order of acquittal of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in SC No.88 of 2007, finding the respondents/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of P.W.1's sister was performed with A1/2nd respondent on 05.12.2004 by giving dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The said dowry was paid in three installments. Immediately after the marriage, the accused started harassing for getting money and articles. On 04.05.2006, at about 6.25 a.m, P.W.1 received a phone call stating that his sister died by committing suicide. The case was registered for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC and after investigation police filed charge sheet for the said offence.
2
3. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 and marking Exs.P1 to P11 and Exs.D1 to D8 on behalf of the accused, having considered the entire evidence on record, acquitted the accused.
4. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that there is no dispute that A1 and the deceased married at Arya samaj on 12.03.2003 without elders consent. The relatives again performed their marriage on 05.12.2004 and there was no demand for any dowry. The alleged harassment as stated by the witnesses was not convincing since there were several contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Even according to the admission of P.W.1/brother of deaceased, the entire details of the alleged harassment made during the course of trial before the Court were all omissions and he did not state such version before the police regarding any demand for dowry and other allegations made during his chief examination. However, P.W.1 stated that since he was not asked, no such statements were made.
3
5. The other instances narrated by the witnesses, the court found that they were exaggerations regarding the alleged harassment and not stated during investigation.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
7. In the present case, the revision is filed by the defacto complainant. This Court under revisional powers cannot reverse the order of acquittal into one of conviction. At the 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 4 most, remand can be ordered by this Court for retrial. In the present case, there are no grounds to order retrial. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be found fault with as they are based on record.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.01.2023 kvs 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.688 OF 2009 Dt. 03.01.2023 kvs 6