Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 712 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.765 of 2009
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 19.12.2007 in C.C.No.195 of 2002 passed by the
XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court),
Hyderabad.
2. The present Criminal Revision Case was filed under Section
397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. Under Section 401 (5) of Cr.P.C, if an
appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the
High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that such application was
made under the erroneous belief, High Court can treat it as an
Appeal. Accordingly, the Revision Case filed by the defacto
complainant is treated as Criminal Appeal.
3. The case of the appellant herein, who is the defacto
complainant is that she was married to A1 and at the time of
marriage, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given towards goda joda
and Rs.25,000/- towards purchase of scooter was given. However,
the accused started harassing the defacto complainant for
additional dowry of Rs.25,000/- for purchasing a scooter.
4. Learned trial Judge having examined P.Ws.1 to 5 on behalf of
the prosecution, found that the version of PWs. 4 & 5 that the
accused were demanding Rs.25,000/- was known to them through
P.W.1. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses supported
prosecution case. Though P.W.2 stated that jahez list was
prepared, no such list was produced. The Investigating
Officer/P.W.4 stated that both P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state about the
alleged dowry demand by the accused.
5. On the basis of the said findings, the trial Court recorded
acquittal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the trial Court ought to have believed the version of P.W.1 and
convicted the accused. P.W.1 has specifically stated that
Rs.25,000/- was being demanded by the accused for purchase of
scooter and for the reason of not giving the said amount, she was
physically and mentally harassed. In the said circumstances,
acquittal has to be reversed.
7. The order of acquittal can only be reversed under compelling
circumstances by the appellate Court. Only when it is found that
any gross error on the face of the record was made or evidence not
considered in its proper perspective, the appellate Court can
interfere in an order of acquittal. Only for the reason of there being
a possibility of a view that the accused have committed the offence,
the order of acquittal cannot be reversed on the said ground.
8. None of the independent witnesses have supported the
version of P.W.1. Though P.W.2 stated that jahez list was prepared,
the same was not produced. The Investigating Officer has
specifically stated that the version of demand for Rs.25,000/- and
other demands made by the accused were omissions in the earliest
version in the complaint and also under Section 161 Cr.P.C
statements of witnesses P.Ws.1 & 2. In the said circumstances,
there are no compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case converted to Criminal
Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.02.2024 kvs
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!