The court affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER:

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

This Revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C .’) challenging the judgment dated 05.05.2011 in Crl.A.No.55 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a term of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’) by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, in C.C.No.236 of 2008, dated 24.03.2011, was confirmed.

2. I have heard the arguents of Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revisionist, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision, submitted that the learned Appellate Court failed to see that the evidence on record would not constitute any offence for the alleged offence charged; the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 did not inspire any confidence; no independent witness was examined to corroborate the testimony of PW.1; PWs.3, 5 and 7, being the independent witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the learned Courts below ought to have given benefit of doubt to the revisionist. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant died on 20.05.2014, and to that effect, a photocopy of the death certificate was filed. The revisionist and the de facto complainant were blessed with one daughter who had already got married. The revision was filed in the year 2011 and 14 years have passed by, and urged to show some leniency towards the revisionist and requested to modify the sentence already undergone. Alternatively, however, the learned counsel for the revisionist volunteers that an amount of Rs.10,000/- may be imposed as a measure of penance and urged to dispose of the revision.

4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 to 9 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.55 of 2011 dated05.05.2011, passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

6. It is apposite to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 at Paragraph No.10 held as under:

“The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C ., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.”

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP , AIR 1962 SC 1788, at Paragraph No.7 held as under:

“7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub- section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to