Telagapalli Ramakrishna vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1341 AP

      THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.65 of 2020

ORDER:-

      The Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is filed by

the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.12.2018 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2013 by Judge, Family court-Cum-

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole

wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed

confirming the judgment dated 23.07.2012 passed in C.C.No.221

of 2009 by II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole,

Prakasam wherein the accused were found not guilty for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and were

acquitted.

2.    The gist of the prosecution's case is:

      The marriage of the complainant was performed with A1 on

15.08.2008 by giving cash of Rs.3,50,000/-, other house hold

articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- and two sovereigns of gold towards

dowry. Subsequent to their marriage A1 to A4 started harassing

her   both   mentally   and   physically    for   additional   dowry    of

Rs.3,00,000/-    and    thus,   their      marriage    was     also    not

consummated. When the matter was placed before the elders they

tried to pacify the matter and on their advice the complainant and

A1 set up a separate family at Tada. On the instructions of A3, A1

took Ayyapa Deeksha and after completion of the same the

complainant was necked out of the matrimonial house by

demanding additional dowry. As such the complainant lodged a

report with the Police and the same was registered as crime No.77
                                           2


of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and

after concluding the investigation charge sheet is filed.

3.        The trial Court during the course of trial, examined PWs1 to

10, marked Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of the prosecution and Exs.D1

and D2 on behalf of A1 to A4. After a full fledged trial, the trial

Court acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against them

since the prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against

them beyond reasonable doubt.

4.        Assailing the said judgment the complainant preferred

criminal appeal before Judge, Family Court-Cum-VIII Additional

District and Sessions judge, Prakasam, Ongole. The appellate

Court had referred to Ghurey Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid the principles to be

followed by the appellate Courts while reverting the order of

acquittal were crystallized and the same are extracted hereunder:

         1.      The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
         disturb the trial Court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
         and compleling reasons" for doing so.

         2.      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;

1
    2008 (10) SCC 450
                                          3


        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.;

        vii)     this list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive

        2.       The appellate Court must always give proper weight
        and consideration to 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 Court's,
        Appellate Courts must rule in favour of the accused.

5.       The appellate Court having appreciating the contentions of

both the parties held that the trial Court had rightly concluded and

disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses and rightly

acquitted the accused and dismissed the appeal while upholding

the findings of the trial Court.

6.       Both the Courts below opined that there was development in

the version of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant

in their chief is different from their 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

7.       While exercising the revisional jurisdiction this Court does

not sit in appeal and the scope of the revision is very limited. It is

the supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the Court to correct the

manifest error in the order of sub-ordinate Courts.

8.       In K.Chinnaswamy Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that revisional jurisdiction should be

exercised by the High Court in exception cases only when there is

some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point

of law resulting in flagarant miscarriage of justice. However, this

was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked

against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has

excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible




2
    AIR 1962 SC 1788
                                         4


evidence of material evidence has been overlooked, etc, then only

this Court would be justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction.

9.        In Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration3 the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is

severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of

evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the

Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for

determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by the

Courts below was right.

10.       In Ram Briksh Singh and others vs. Ambika Yadav and

another4 it was held:

          "Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections
          conferring   higher   and   superior   courts   a   sort   of
          supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be
          exercised     sparingly.    Though       the    jurisdiction
          under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct
          wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not
          required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time,
          it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality
          resulting in gross miscarriage of justice."


11.       The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

present revision is not maintainable by the complainant against

the order of acquittal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment

of the trial Court, he ought to have preferred an appeal under

Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. before the High Court after obtaining

special leave. In support of his contentions he relied upon

K.Ramachandran vs. V.N. Rajan and Ors.5 wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court held as under:

1975 (4) SCC 649

2004 (7) SCC 665

2009 (2) ACR 2183 (SC)

"..... considering the history of appeal against acquittal and the revisional powers of the High court, the appeal against acquittal originally was not there. ..... in India, however, unlimited and general right was given in respect of appeal against acquittals in favour of the State Government.

In its 48th Report, the Law Commission cautioned against the unlimited nature of the right and prescribed that it was desirable to put some limitation as to the nature of cases where the right would be available. It was also further provided that regard must be had to the need of putting reasonable limitations on the period for which anxiety and tension of a criminal prosecution could be allowed to torment the mind of the appellant- accused. It was provided that there is a qualitative distinction between conviction and acquittal and appeals against acquittals should not be allowed in the same un-restricted manner as appeal against conviction. Before that in its 41st Report, the Law Commission had observed that the appeals against acquittals should be heard by the High Court to avoid miscarriage of justice and to secure a uniform standard in dealing with such appeals. It was further provided that the right of appeal should be confined only to the State and the complainant and cannot be given to other interested persons. Thirdly, it was provided that there no need for an express provision to the effect that when an appeal by State has been dismissed no application for special leave by complainant should be competent since this is a necessary consequence of the dismissal of appeal. (Emphasis supplied). Forthly, it was provided that an appeal from a Single Judge to the Bench will not serve any useful purpose, and lastly it was provided there was no justification for extending the time for appeals by the State.

In the Report of Joint Select Committee also it was recommended that such appeals shall be entertained by the High Court only if it grants leave to the State Government in this behalf. This is necessary to check any arbitrary exercise of executive power. Section 378, Cr.P.C., as it stood then was further amended w.e.f 23.06.2006 by Act No.25 of 2005 vide Section 32 while for the first time the appeals against acquittals recorded by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and bailable offences could be tried by the Court of Sessions also. But we are not concerned with that Amendment.

All this would clearly suggest that once the appeal at the instance of the State has been dismissed, the complainant or the state could not ask for the revision of the judgment."

12. In Kailash Murarka vs. K.Geet Srijan6 the High Court of

Chhattisgarh dealt with the tenability of appeals before the Court

of Session against the judgment of acquittal passed by subordinate

criminal court arising out of criminal complaint filed by

complainant.

"35. Therefore, we will concentrate on the stated question referred to this Bench about tenability of appeals before the Court of Session against the judgment of acquittal passed by subordinate criminal court arising out of criminal complaint filed by complainant.

36. As discussed earlier, Section 378(4) of the Code is a special provision, dealing specifically with appeal by complainant in case of acquittal of accused in complaint cases, and as such it will have overriding as well as exclusive application and effect in cases of acquittal of accused in cases instituted upon complaint. Section 378(4) of the Code lays down twin criteria for tenability of appeal that it should be filed in the High Court and that the appeal will lie after obtaining special leave. As a corollary it flows that complainant will not be entitled to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code before the Court of Session against the judgment of acquittal passed by subordinate criminal court arising out of criminal complaint filed by complainant, he will be required to prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code before the High Court after obtaining leave. Even otherwise, in cases instituted upon complaint, the complainant has much role in the court proceedings and as is apparent from the Statement of Object and Reason of Act No. 5 of 2009 which amended the Code, changes have been brought with a view to give certain rights and compensation to the victims who do not have much role in the court proceedings. Therefore also, the incorporation of proviso to Section 372 of the Code by Act No. 5 of 2009, providing right of appeal to the victim, will not come to the aid

2015 SCC Online Chh 1640:2015 CrkLJ 1627

those victims who are complainants having much role in the court proceedings.

37. Thus we hold and answer the stated question as follows:

1. Complainant is not entitled to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code before the Court of Session against the judgment of acquittal passed by subordinate criminal court arising out of criminal complaint filed by complainant;

2. Complainant is required to prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code before the High Court after obtaining special leave ..."

13. Firstly this Court has to examine whether the petitioner

could make out a case seeking interference of this Court under the

revisional jurisdiction.

14. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the complainant

was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by A1 to A4. In such

circumstances, the trial Court, while acquitting the accused has

considered the evidence in detail and came to a conclusion that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly

reveals that the allegations made by her do not attract the offences

as alleged. It was observed by the trial Court the witnesses who

were examined on behalf of the complainant have developed their

version from their 161 Cr.P.C. statements and the evidence given

in maintenance case.

15. It was observed by the lower appellate Court that the

testimony of PWs1 to 4 is riddled with contradictions and the

testimony of PW1 having been bristle with material omissions and

on account of divergent versions it is unsafe to rely upon their

testimony. The evidence of PWs2 and 3 bristle with material

developments and held that there is no factual support for bringing

in the above mentioned sections. The lower appellate Court upheld

the judgment of the trial Court by observing how the complainant

came to the Court and gave developed version to what she has

stated in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement and in the cross-

examination deposed before the Court which are contrary to the

version narrated in her complaint.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out

any manifest illegality in the concurrent findings of fact and also

could point out that the Courts below have ignored any relevant

evidence or inadmissible evidence has been recorded or there is

any other manifest error in the judgments.

17. The revision petitioner could not make out any grounds

seeking interference of this Court with the well considered

judgment of the Courts below.

18. Apart from this, as per the law laid down, the complainant is

not entitled to prefer an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the

Code before the Court of Session against the judgment of acquittal

passed by subordinate criminal court arising out of criminal

complaint filed by complainant and the complainant is required to

prefer an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code before the High

Court after obtaining special leave.

19. In view of the above discussions, this revision preferred by

the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date : 04.03.2021 IKN

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(Dismissed)

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.65 OF 2021

Date : 04.03.2021

IKN