S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment rendered in crl. A No. 71 of 1999 by the learned IV additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool on 31-8-2000 whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner being A1 by Trial Court i. e. , judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool in cc No. 227 of 1998 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC has been confirmed.

( 2 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that A1 along with his parents who are A2 and A3 demanded PW1 the wife of A1 for additional dowry three months after the marriage of PW1 with A1 and they have harassed her by frequently scolding and beating her for getting dowry and the said torture has become unbearable. The petitioner-A1 also underwent second marriage at Mahanandeswara Temple at nandyal on 7-2-1998 with one Bharathi. Thereupon the lower Court framed charges under Sections 498-A against all accused and charge under Section 494 IPC against the accused No. 1 and tried the case and ultimately found A1 and other accused guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- while acquitting A1 of the offence under Section 494 IPC. Aggrieved by the same the matter has been carried in appeal to the IV Additional sessions Judge, Kurnool who in turn confirmed the conviction and sentence under section 498-A IPC against A. 1 in Crl. A no. 71799 and acquitted rest of the accused of the said offence. Aggrieved by the same the present revision is preferred by A1.

( 3 ) THE point that falls for consideration is whether there is any illegality in the order under appeal?

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contends that mere demand for additional dowry does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC and something more is required to be established and hence he has sought for setting aside the findings of the lower Court on the ground that it is not based on proper appreciation of evidence which led to miscarriage of justice.

( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contends that the lower court has rightly come to the conclusions. He has taken me through the evidence of pw1 who spoke to the alleged harassment etc.

( 6 ) ADVERTING to the same it is now well settled that normally revisional Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower Courts. The appellate Court has arrived at right conclusion after evaluating the evidence. It is also well settled law that the question of reappraisal of the evidence by the High court does not arise in revision cases. There are exceptions to the same. The exceptions are that the Court has to keep in mind while exercising the power of revision that it has to be exercised in rare cases only where miscarriage of justice has resulted. Many a case fall under the category of cases. It is not necessary to adumbrate all the category of cases. Suffice it to say the revisional jurisdiction is exercisable to rectify the illegality, irregularity, impropriety which must appear on the face of the record in the proceeding of any inferior Court. There cannot be any hard and fast rule for application of the revisional jurisdiction. The discretion has to be exercised only on sound judicial principles with a view to render substantial injustice. In the following cases the revisional jurisdiction can always be exercised. "the Court will interfere: (i) If the accused is not given reasonable opportunity to prove his case; (ii) If the evidence was shut out or the conclusion arrived at are based on no evidence, or there is no scope for the conclusions arrived; (iii) If there is any error of law on a point of law or no appraisal of evidence at all or no jurisdiction at all to try or where material evidence has been shut out or inadmissible evidence has been acted upon, or material evidence has been overlooked or there is anothe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document