Telangana High Court
Smt. Shahanaz Begum vs The State Of A.P. Cyberabad And 7 Others on 3 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.125 OF 2009
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto complainant aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, in C.C.No.1724 of 2005, vide Judgment dated 15.02.2008.
2. The revision petitioner is the victim who is defacto complainant in the Court below. On her complaint, Police, Saroornagar, registered a case and investigated into it. A1 to A7 were arrayed as accused for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
4. Briefly, the case of the defecto complainant is that she was married to A1 on 23.08.1999. At the time of marriage 2 Tulas of gold, household articles were given and marriage expenditure was incurred. A1 along with A2 to A7 were residing in the very same house. After few days, all the accused started harassing the father of victim for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing an Auto. Since he failed to arrange the said amount, she was ill-treated on daily basis. Disgusted with the conduct of the accused, she stayed in the 2 parents' house, till she gave birth to a male child. Again the accused started demanding Rs.40,000/-. On 21.05.2002 when the father of the appellant along with others went to the house of the accused to drop the complainant in the house of the accused, there was an altercation resulting in injuries to both the parties. Basing on the said incident, crime was registered and investigated and charge sheet filed.
5. During the course of trial PWs.1 to 7 were examined. PW1 is the appellant/victim, herein. PW2 is the father and PWs.3 and 4 are brothers of PW1.
6. The learned Magistrate found that the very evidence of accused attacking with a knife could not be believed since injury that was received was a lacerated injury. Except stating that the accused was harassing for additional dowry, no specific instances were narrated. Further, the demand of Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of Auto would not fall within the definition of dowry.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 3 one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
9. This Court is prohibited from converting Judgment of acquittal into one of conviction under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C. As already found there are no grounds to interfere that there was harassment by the accused. Further, there are no reasons to remand the case to the lower Court for trial.
10. Basing on the said grounds, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.07.2024 tk