Telangana High Court
Smt. Asra Sulthana, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And 4 ... on 20 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.765 of 2009
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.2007 in C.C.No.195 of 2002 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.
2. The present Criminal Revision Case was filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. Under Section 401 (5) of Cr.P.C, if an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief, High Court can treat it as an Appeal. Accordingly, the Revision Case filed by the defacto complainant is treated as Criminal Appeal.
3. The case of the appellant herein, who is the defacto complainant is that she was married to A1 and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given towards goda joda and Rs.25,000/- towards purchase of scooter was given. However, the accused started harassing the defacto complainant for additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- for purchasing a scooter. 2
4. Learned trial Judge having examined P.Ws.1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution, found that the version of PWs. 4 & 5 that the accused were demanding Rs.25,000/- was known to them through P.W.1. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses supported prosecution case. Though P.W.2 stated that jahez list was prepared, no such list was produced. The Investigating Officer/P.W.4 stated that both P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state about the alleged dowry demand by the accused.
5. On the basis of the said findings, the trial Court recorded acquittal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court ought to have believed the version of P.W.1 and convicted the accused. P.W.1 has specifically stated that Rs.25,000/- was being demanded by the accused for purchase of scooter and for the reason of not giving the said amount, she was physically and mentally harassed. In the said circumstances, acquittal has to be reversed.
7. The order of acquittal can only be reversed under compelling circumstances by the appellate Court. Only when it is found that any gross error on the face of the record was made or evidence not 3 considered in its proper perspective, the appellate Court can interfere in an order of acquittal. Only for the reason of there being a possibility of a view that the accused have committed the offence, the order of acquittal cannot be reversed on the said ground.
8. None of the independent witnesses have supported the version of P.W.1. Though P.W.2 stated that jahez list was prepared, the same was not produced. The Investigating Officer has specifically stated that the version of demand for Rs.25,000/- and other demands made by the accused were omissions in the earliest version in the complaint and also under Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses P.Ws.1 & 2. In the said circumstances, there are no compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case converted to Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.02.2024 kvs