A. Omprakesh, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 397 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                      CRL.R.C.No.571 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

None appeared for the revision petitioner on the previous date

of hearing and as well as today. This court, basing on the material

available on record, is constrained to dispose of the criminal revision

case since the said revision pertains to the year 2007.

2. This criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by the judgment

dated 02.01.2007 in Sessions Case No.427 of 2006, on the file of the

V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Courts, at

Hyderabad.

3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the

record.

4. The revision petitioner herein is the de facto complainant, on

whose complaint, a case in Crime No.143 of 2005 of P.S.Moghalpura

was registered against the second respondent herein/accused, for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC and Section 3 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act. As against the acquittal of the second

respondent herein vide the impugned judgment, the de facto

complainant has preferred this revision.

5. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge has grossly erred in appreciating the evidence on

record in proper perspective, which resulted in wrong conclusions.

The Court below has wrongly recorded a finding that the prosecution

has not produced any satisfactory evidence to establish the offences

alleged against the accused and, accordingly, acquitted the second

respondent herein.

6. The court below framed four points for determination and they

were held in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

The Court below, after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence on record, found that the prosecution has failed to establish

its case against the accused. The trial Court disbelieved the version of

the prosecution witnesses, as they were interested witnesses and,

accordingly, acquitted second respondent herein from the charges

levelled against him.

7. On a perusal of the material on record, the judgment of the

Court below, I am of the considered view that the findings arrived at

by the court below are purely based on the evidence available on

record and also based on proper evaluation of the evidence adduced

by the material witnesses. There are no valid grounds to interfere

with the said findings of the Court below. I do not find any illegality,

irregularity, infirmity, perversity or impropriety in the impugned

judgment, warranting interference by this Court by invoking the

criminal jurisdiction.

8. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 02.02.2022 Lrkm