Telangana High Court
M. Bhaskar Aravind vs State Of A.P. on 3 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.688 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner, who is the defacto complainant is
questioning the correctness of the order of acquittal of the
learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at L.B.Nagar, in SC No.88 of 2007, finding the
respondents/accused not guilty of the offence under Section
304-B of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of
P.W.1's sister was performed with A1/2nd respondent on
05.12.2004 by giving dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The said dowry
was paid in three installments. Immediately after the
marriage, the accused started harassing for getting money and
articles. On 04.05.2006, at about 6.25 a.m, P.W.1 received a
phone call stating that his sister died by committing suicide.
The case was registered for the offence under Section 304-B of
IPC and after investigation police filed charge sheet for the
said offence.
3. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the
prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 and marking Exs.P1 to
P11 and Exs.D1 to D8 on behalf of the accused, having
considered the entire evidence on record, acquitted the
accused.
4. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that there is
no dispute that A1 and the deceased married at Arya samaj on
12.03.2003 without elders consent. The relatives again
performed their marriage on 05.12.2004 and there was no
demand for any dowry. The alleged harassment as stated by
the witnesses was not convincing since there were several
contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Even according
to the admission of P.W.1/brother of deaceased, the entire
details of the alleged harassment made during the course of
trial before the Court were all omissions and he did not state
such version before the police regarding any demand for dowry
and other allegations made during his chief examination.
However, P.W.1 stated that since he was not asked, no such
statements were made.
5. The other instances narrated by the witnesses, the court
found that they were exaggerations regarding the alleged
harassment and not stated during investigation.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian
criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental
protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.
Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and
secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.
Both these facets attain even greater significance where the
accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment
of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the
accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false
implication. But then, this has to be established on record of
the Court.
7. In the present case, the revision is filed by the defacto
complainant. This Court under revisional powers cannot
reverse the order of acquittal into one of conviction. At the
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
most, remand can be ordered by this Court for retrial. In the
present case, there are no grounds to order retrial. The
findings of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be found fault
with as they are based on record.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As
a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.01.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.688 OF 2009
Dt. 03.01.2023
kvs
