(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal No.507/2014 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble III Additional Sessions Judge, at Guntur, Guntur District, dated 08.06.2015, in which reversing the judgment in C.C.No.38/2009, dated 18.12.2014 on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, subsequently, to confirm the Judgment passed in C.C.No.38/2009, dated 18.02.2014 on the file Court of the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District and pass)

1. This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 08.06.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2014 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder set aside the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.38 of 2009 made by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri by its judgment dated 18.12.2014 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 494 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code‟).

2. The parties are being referred to as per their positions before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present criminal revision case are that, PW1/ B. Aruna Kumari is the wife of Accused No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 11.6.1997 and at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1/Aruna Kumari gave dowry of Rs.50,000/- besides other presentations. Out of their lawful wedlock, PW1/Aruna Kumari begot two children. Thereafter, accused No.1 addicted to vices, started demanding to bring dowry, at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 and as she failed to comply the illegal demand of accused No.1, he necked out PW1 in the month of September, 2003 along with her children and also demanded to bring additional dowry or else give consent for divorce and subsequently, she came to know that accused No.1 married another woman namely Durga and gave birth to a male child. Basing on the report of the defacto complainant i.e. PW1, PW6/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2008 of Tadikonda Police Station for the offenses under Section 494, 498A and 506 r/w 34 of the Code and after completion of investigation, the Station House Officer filed charge sheet of the offenses stated supra.

4. At the culmination of trial, having convicted accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Code and acquitted him of the offences under Section 494 of the Code, the learned trial Court also acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 of the offenses under Sections 494, 498A and 506 r/w 34 of the Code. Being dissatisfied by the said judgment of conviction, accused No.1 preferred criminal appeal bearing No.507 of 2014 and having considered the material placed before it, learned III Additional Sessions judge, Guntur allowed the appeal by acquitting the accused of the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Code.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant i.e. PW1/Aruna Kumari preferred this instant revision case urging the following grounds:

                  i) The judgment of the appellate Court is liable to be set aside as it is perverse and as it failed to appreciate evidence in proper perspective.

                  ii) The appellate Court wrongly discussed unimportant aspects like date of demand of dowry, quantum of dowry and other allied aspects and came to wrong conclusion.

                  iii) The appellate Court gave wrong finding that the petitioner gave report on 05.10.2009 and actually PW1 gave complaint on 05.10.2008.

                  iv) The appellate Court failed to consider the ingredients covered under Section 498-A and that they are proved by the prosecution.

                  v) The appellate Court failed to consider the aspect that accused No.1 did not file any petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and with other formal grounds prayed to set aside the order passed by the appellate Court and convict the accused No.1 for the offenses under Section 498A and 506 of the Code.

6. Heard Sri K. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material placed on record, the point that would arises for consideration is:

                  Whether the judgment dated 08.06.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2014 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur is sustainable in facts and law or it suffers from any material irregularity?

8. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is to be noted that this Court is not an appellate Court and is only authorized to rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law and it is trite law that the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C‟) to call for and examine records of an inferior Court is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.

9. Further, in respect of the power conferred on this Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it is to be noted that in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and Others vs. State of Biharand Another (2002 6 SCC 650), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held at para No.12 thus:

                  “12. We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial Court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party. (See D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [1951 SCC 184 : AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 Cri LJ 510] , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 8] , Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu [(1975) 4 SCC 477 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 543 : AIR 1975 SC 1854] and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh [AIR 1968 SC 707 : 1968 Cri LJ 665] .)”

10. And, in Joseph Stephen and Others vs. Santhanasamy and Others (2022 13 SCC 115 ), the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that Section 401(3) Cr.P.C prohibits or bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and further held at para No.10 thus:

                  “10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and on a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 401CrPC, it has to be held that sub-section (3) of Sectio 401CrPC prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of 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.”

11. As per both the principles, the High Court has no power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and the same principle is followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment in Mahabir and Others vs. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 120).

12. So, as per the aforementioned propositions, interference of order of acquittal is called for only in exceptional cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure resulting into miscarriage of justice, and, where the acquittal has been caused by shutting out evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In Ganesha vs. Sharanappa and Another (2014, 1 SCC 87), Hon'ble Apex Court held that in exceptional cases, the High Court can set aside an order of acquittal, but it cannot convert it into one of conviction and the only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order for retrial.

13. In a recent judgment in C.N. Shantha Kumar vs. M.S. Srinivas (2024 LiveLaw SC 660), having found fault with the action adopted by the High Court for converting the finding of acquittal into conviction, Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the High Court should have been remitted the case for conducting retrial or for rehearing for fresh disposal.

14. Now, it is to be seen that whether the prosecution could establish the ingredients of Section 498-A and 506 of the Code and whether the judgment of the appellate Court suffers from patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or perversity.

15. To prove its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and out of which, PW 5 and 6 are official witnesses. PW 3 who is independent witness, did not support the case of prosecution and nothing useful material is elicited in his cross-examination. As per the version of PW 4, he came to know about the alleged harassment through his wife and he is not eyewitness to any of the incidents. So, the remaining evidence is that of PWs 1 and 2. PW 1 set the criminal law into motion and originally the crime was registered of the offences under Sections 494, 498A, 506 r/w 34 of the Code and at the culmination of trial, the learned trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4 and convicted the accused of the offences under Section 498-A and 506 of the Code.

16. It came in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4, accused No.1 harassed PW.1 and demanded to bring additional dowry. As rightly observed by the appellate Court, initially PW1 stated in her chief examination that they lead happy marital life for three months only and thereafter, accused No.1 started harassing her at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4, whereas, coming to her cross examination, she had categorically admitted that they lead happy marital life for two and half years and thereafter, accused No.1 started demanding additional dowry at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4, she never resided along with accused Nos.2 to 4, accused Nos.3 & 4 are residents of Davuluru Village since from the inception of their marriage, accused No.2 is resident of Tadepalli and herself and accused No.1 used to reside in separate house. Therefore, the said evidence adduced against accused Nos.2 to 4 is negated by the trial Court and acquitted them of the offences under Sections 494, 498A, 506 r/w 34 of the Code .

17. Having stated that on 10.09.2003, accused No.1 necked her out and her children from the matrimonial house and then, she was admitted in Chandravathi Hospital, Mangalagiri, took treatment and bed rest, she has categorically admitted that she has not filed medical record, not mentioned the same in the report and also not stated before the police. As per the admitted version of PW1, in the year 2003, accused No.1 necked her out from the matrimonial house along with her children and she gave report in the month of October, 2008. PW1 is working as conductor and having had knowledge about legal proceedings, she has not given report at the earliest point of time and also not included the details regarding her ill-health, admission in hospital and other allied aspects. Had really PW1 was subjected to cruelty in the hands of accused No.1, she should have been given report at the earliest point of time and as per the version of PW1, after coming to know about the second marriage of accused No.1, she gave report and again she had admitted that immediately after coming to know about the said fact, she has not given report and in the year 2008 only, she gave report to police. It is already stated above that though the charge sheet filed of the offence under Section 494 of the Code, having considered the material placed before it, the trial Court acquitted all the accused of the said offence and record also does not show that accused No.1 married again. As rightly observed by the Appellate Court, she has not even stated specific dates and how much money accused No.1 demanded for. Added to it, having stated that accused No.1 demanded her to bring additional dowry at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4, PW.1‟s subsequent version is that since accused No.1 doesn't like her, he insisted for divorce so as to marry other woman by receiving more dowry.

18. As per the principles in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and Others (Supra), Joseph Stephen and Others(Supra) and C.N. Shantha Kumar (Supra), Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars this Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and in exceptional cases, if this Court comes to conclusion that the order of acquittal is to be set aside, the only course left to this Court is to remit the case for rehearing and fresh disposal. Absolutely this case does not fall under the category of exception. Making allegations without there being any material in respect of demand of dowry is of no use and to direct conviction against the accused No.1 of the offence under Section 498-A of the Code, prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds merit in the contentions of the leaned counsel for the accused No.1. Aforementioned reasons are sufficient to hold that the allegations of the prosecution are not tenable. The learned appellate Court appreciated evidence in proper perspective, assigned justifiable reasons and acquitted the accused No.1 and as such, the judgment dated 08.06.2015 is sustainable in facts and law and no interference by this Court is required.

20. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the judgment dated 08.06.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.507 of 2014 made by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.