Telangana High Court
Smt. Shahanaz Begum vs The State Of A.P. Cyberabad And 7 Others on 3 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.125 OF 2009
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto complainant
aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the II Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, in C.C.No.1724 of 2005, vide Judgment
dated 15.02.2008.
2. The revision petitioner is the victim who is defacto complainant
in the Court below. On her complaint, Police, Saroornagar, registered
a case and investigated into it. A1 to A7 were arrayed as accused for
the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
4. Briefly, the case of the defecto complainant is that she was
married to A1 on 23.08.1999. At the time of marriage 2 Tulas of gold,
household articles were given and marriage expenditure was
incurred. A1 along with A2 to A7 were residing in the very same
house. After few days, all the accused started harassing the father of
victim for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for purchasing an Auto. Since
he failed to arrange the said amount, she was ill-treated on daily
basis. Disgusted with the conduct of the accused, she stayed in the
parents' house, till she gave birth to a male child. Again the accused
started demanding Rs.40,000/-. On 21.05.2002 when the father of
the appellant along with others went to the house of the accused to
drop the complainant in the house of the accused, there was an
altercation resulting in injuries to both the parties. Basing on the
said incident, crime was registered and investigated and charge sheet
filed.
5. During the course of trial PWs.1 to 7 were examined. PW1 is
the appellant/victim, herein. PW2 is the father and PWs.3 and 4 are
brothers of PW1.
6. The learned Magistrate found that the very evidence of accused
attacking with a knife could not be believed since injury that was
received was a lacerated injury. Except stating that the accused was
harassing for additional dowry, no specific instances were narrated.
Further, the demand of Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of Auto would
not fall within the definition of dowry.
7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, held that while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to
consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The
reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to
be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal.
8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the
settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in
reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule
or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise
disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial
and compelling reasons" for doing so.
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;
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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not
exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight
and consideration o 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
Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
9. This Court is prohibited from converting Judgment of acquittal
into one of conviction under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C. As already
found there are no grounds to interfere that there was harassment
by the accused. Further, there are no reasons to remand the case to
the lower Court for trial.
10. Basing on the said grounds, Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.07.2024
tk
