Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chinta Surya Vahini, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And 3 Others, on 2 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.820 of 2007
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 11.04.2007 in C.C.No.90 of
2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Chirala, the petitioner/de facto complainant filed
the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"Cr.P.C.").
2. The revision case was admitted on 27.12.2007.
3. The admitted facts in the present criminal revision case
are that on 10.11.2001 at Ramakrishnapuram, accused No.1
married P.W.1/petitioner/Ch.Suryavahini as per Hindu
Dharma Sastras and it is an arranged marriage. They were
blessed with a female child on 10.12.2002. Subsequently, the
petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the
respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused and the same was taken on file
under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of IPC.
4. After full pledged trial, the trial Court found the accused
not guilty of the charges under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of
IPC and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/de facto
complainant preferred the present revision.
6. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel
representing for the petitioner/de facto complainant and Sri
K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to
4/accused.
7. Now the point that arises for determination in this
revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or
procedure or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the judgment
rendered by the trial Court in C.No.90 of 2005?"
8. No doubt, the law is settled on the point of revision that
the power of revision accords a superior court, the prerogative
to scrutinize and review the decisions made by a lower court at
any stage of a trial and rectify errors or irregularities in
conformity with the cannons of natural justice and equitable
treatment among other grounds. The revisionary powers of the
High Court can be sourced to section 401 of the Cr.P.C.,
whereunder the High Court has the discretionary power to inter
alia reverse/alter a finding by a lower court; order a retrial;
suspend the execution of a lower court's order; issue a warrant
of arrest and direct the recording of additional evidence.
However, a revision Court, therefore, has a limited mandate of
only evaluating the prima facie legality, correctness, or the
propriety of the orders, findings and/or sentence of a lower
court in accordance with the established rules of criminal
jurisprudence.
9. It is also settled proposition that such jurisdiction cannot
be exercised in a routine manner by the higher courts and can
be only invoked in specific instances wherein the decisions
under challenge are inter-alia grossly erroneous, there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is
based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
10. For which, this Court fortified by a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
Chander1 as well Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra2.
11. Even in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanaswamy3, held at
paragraph Nos.10 and 12 as follows:
"10.Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions and on a plain reading of sub-
section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., it has to be held that
sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
1 (2012) 9 SCC 460
2 2022 SCC Online SC 453
3 (2022) 13 SCC 115
conviction. Though and as observed hereinabove, the
High Court has revisional power to examine whether
there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however,
after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by
the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside
the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the
matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate
Court, as the case may be.
12. Therefore, in the present case, the High Court has
erred in quashing and setting aside the order of
acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of
acquittal into one of conviction and consequently
convicted the accused, while exercising the powers
under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The order of conviction by the
High Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction
under Section 401 Cr.P.C., is therefore unsustainable,
beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C.,
more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.
Issue no.1 is answered accordingly."
12. From the above, it is clear that Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C.
Prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal
into one of conviction. The High Court has revisional power to
examine whether there is manifest error lf law or procedure, etc.
However, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded
by the Court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the
order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the
trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be.
13. In the present case on hand, now, this Court has to
decide whether there is any such manifest error of law or
procedure or excess use of discretion by the Court below in
acquitting the accused.
14. It is stated by the de facto complainant/petitioner in her
complaint as well in the evidence that before the marriage on
the demand, the parents of the petitioner took four demands
drafts worth of Rs.30,000/- each in favour of parents of accused
No.1; that soon after the marriage, she joined with accused No.1
at the matrimonial home and lived happily for a period of three
(3) months; that in the meantime, she conceived and later
accused Nos.2 and 3 started demanding for additional dowry on
the pretext of Srimantham and that after receipt of additional
dowry of Rs.20,000/- by the parents of accused No.1, all the
accused attended the naming ceremony of the female child.
15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2004, there
was an incident happened that all the accused came to Chirala,
made a galata for additional dowry, abused in filthy language,
beat the complainant and her parents also and then accused
Nos.2 and 3 proclaimed that they will arrange second marriage
to accused No.1, unless they meet the additional dowry of
Rs.50,000/- and she was not allowed to join accused No.1.
16. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and
Exs.P.1 to P.4 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.
P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.W.2 is father of P.W.1,
P.Ws.3 and 4 are mediators, P.Ws.5 and 6 are neighbours of the
matrimonial home at Chintalapudi and P.W.7 is A.S.I of Police.
17. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 to D.15 are marked
during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Exs.D.1
and D.2 are none other than the relevant portions of Ex.P.1,
Ex.D.3 is certified copy of letter addressed to parents of P.W.1
by accused No.1, Ex.D.4 is acknowledgment given by P.W.2,
Ex.D.5 is certified copy of letter addressed to P.W.1 by accused
Nos.2 and 3, Ex.D.6 is certified copy of letter, Ex.D.7 is
acknowledgment, Ex.D.8 is certified copy of letter addressed to
P.W.1 by accused No.1, Ex.D.9 is acknowledgement, Ex.D.10 is
certified copy of letter addressed to P.W.1 by parents of accused
No.1, Ex.D.11 is acknowledgment, Ex.D.12 is certified copy of
notice in O.P., Ex.D.13 is relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of P.W.2, Ex.D.14 is letter addressed to P.W.1 by
accused Nos.2 and 3 and Ex.D.15 is certified copy of deposition
of P.W.1 in maintenance case.
18. In all, what is made before the trial Court is that on
10.12.2004, accused came to the house of parents of P.W.1,
picked up quarrel with her, abused them in filthy language,
beat her and her parents also and threatened her that if they
will not meet their demand, they will perform second marriage
to accused No.1. On which, she filed Ex.P.1 compliant.
19. It is found from the testimony of P.W.1 that one month
after marriage accused No.1 used to come to house by
consuming alcohol and harassed her by demanding additional
dowry. It is also found from her testimony that she blessed with
a female child in hospital at Jandrapet and the same was
informed to the accused also, even at that time they demanded
for additional dowry.
20. However, it is elicited during the cross examination that
P.W.1 lived with accused No.1 together for fifty-five (55) days in
all in matrimonial house and that from the date, accused No.1
was tested H.I.V. positive, P.W.1 was not sent to accused No.1's
house by her parents. When such is the evidence of P.W.1 that
since accused No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, her parents
refused to send her to the matrimonial house, their complaint
that accused demanded additional dowry to take her for
matrimonial life is all false.
21. It is also elicited from the evidence of P.W.4 that P.W.1
informed to him that accused were harassed P.W.1 for about
three (3) months soon after marriage, thereafter, P.W.1 delivered
a female baby. Five (5) or six (6) months thereafter, himself and
P.W.3 went to the house of accused for mediation. Then accused
demanded Rs.50,000/- for restitution of conjugal life. When
P.W.1 herself deposed that accused No.1 was tested H.I.V.
positive, P.Ws.3 and 4 visited the house of accused for
mediation to restitute the conjugal life and at that time they
demanded Rs.50,000/- is not a believable story. Likewise,
accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened that they would perform
second marriage to accused No.1 is also a highly doubtful
circumstance.
22. Admittedly, P.Ws.5 and 6, who are neighbours, did not
support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile.
23. P.W.7, who is the investigating officer in his evidence
deposed that P.W.1 did not state before him that accused No.1
started beating P.W.1 immediately after one (1) month of the
marriage. Apart from, on perusal of the complaint, P.W.1 did
not state that accused No.1 come to the house by consuming
alcohol and used to beat her indiscriminately. Even the entire
prosecution case is only that some incident was happeneed on
10.12.2004. But, nothing on record to make believe that such
incident was happened on that day.
24. When P.W.1 and her parents known about that accused
No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, P.Ws.3 and 4 visited the house
of accused and made mediation and then they picked up
quarrel and threatened them are not believable and such facts
are not even proved.
25. One more interesting aspect, which found from the
record, is that P.W.1 delivered female child in the year, 2002 in
a hospital and she came to know through the doctor that
accused No.1 was infected with H.I.V. positive in the year, 2001
itself. If that is true, it may not be possible for P.W.1 to go to
matrimonial home to lead conjugal life with him and as per the
admission of P.W.2, since 2001, she has been residing in
parental house.
26. When the incident happened in the year, 2001, at the
time of birth of female child, they came to know that accused
No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, waited till 2005 and gave a
complaint gives any amount of doubt in the prosecution version.
As stated supra, P.Ws.5 and 6, who are neighbours to the
accused, did not support the case of the prosecution nor
supported the version of P.W.1 and they turned hostile.
27. On perusal of testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, there is no
whisper about any specific dates or incident regarding alleged
harassment nor any mediation. When such is the case, P.Ws.3
and 4 went for mediation make an attempt for restitution of
conjugal life is not at all believable and their testimony is not
trustworthy nor cogent nor convincing. Admittedly, since 2001,
P.W.1 was residing separately and till 2005 no report was given
by P.W.1 to police.
28. In the circumstances, there was a demand of additional
dowry by the accused is all false. Whereas, even during the
matrimonial life, whether there is cordial relationship or not is
concerned, there is no convincing evidence from P.Ws.1 to 4
that there was harassment meted out by P.W.1 in the hands of
accused No.1. Evaluating the above all facts, the trial Court
rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed
to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against
them.
29. Even this Court, on perusal of the evidence on record,
nothing found to make believe that P.W.1 meted out
harassment in the hands of accused. Admittedly, there is no
corroboration and there are discrepancies in the testimony of
P.Ws.1 to 4.
30. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there is no manifest error of law or procedure or
misunderstanding of evidence rather miscarriage of justice in
the judgment of the trial Court. Even if the petitioner/de facto
complainant is able to establish there is any manifest error in
the judgment of the trial Court, this Court ought to have come
to conclusion that it went wrong in acquitting the accused, but
whereas, the above discussion clearly goes to show that there is
no material to find guilt of the accused for the charges leveled
against them.
31. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does
not find any such perversity or manifest error of law or
miscarriage of justice to interfere with the well-articulated
judgment of the Court below and there are no merits in this
revision. Thereby, the present criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed.
32. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
confirming the judgment dated 11.04.2007 in C.C.No.90 of
2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Chirala.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 02.01.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.820 of 2007
DATE: 02.01.2024
Krs
