- (1.)This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated November 7, 1990 of the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar allowing Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1990 on his file. Aggrieved by the same the defacto-complainant who is not other than the father of the victim girl filed the present revision.
(2.)The circumstances under which P.W.I set the law in motion are the following: P.W.I is the father of P.W.2, P.W.2's marriage was performed with the first respondent on February 11,1984 at Mangela village. For about 11 /2 years after the marriage they lived happily. Later P.W.3 who is no other than the sister of the first respondent married Vijaya Kumar, brother of P.W.2 and it appears that this marriage was not liked by the parents of both the parties. It is the case of the prosecution that suspecting that P.W.2 was responsible for the said marriage differences arose between herself and her husband resulting in P.W.2 being driven out of the family house on April 3,1985 while she was pregnant. Later that is on September 18,1985 P.W.2 gave birth to a male child. But the birth of male child did not bring any change in the attitude of the first respondent and since they started living separately, P.W.I who is no other than the father of P.W.2 gave Ex.P-1 complaint to the police on October 17,1987 which set the law in motion, resulting in the prosecution under Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in brief 'the Code'). The trial Judge after having heard the evidence held that an offence under Sec.498-A of the Code was made out and sentenced the first respondent to undergo S.I. for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same the first respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.4/90 which was allowed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and acquitted the first respondent of the charge under Sec.498-A of the Code. Aggrieved by the same the defacto-complainant P.W.I filed the present Criminal revision. Since this criminal revision petition is directed against an order of acquittal, the well laid principles to be borne in mind, namely, such revision shall be entertained only in cases where the court that tried the matter has no jurisdiction to try the same, evidence was wrongly shut out, over-looking material evidence, taking into consideration evidence not to be looked into resulting in miscarriage of justice - vide Chinnaswamy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Satyendra Nath Dutta vs. Ram Narain, Bansi Lal vs. Laxman Singh, Mahendra Pratap vs. Sarju Singh and Harihar vs. State of West Bengal.
(3.)Bearing these principles in mind the evidence adduced above by the prosecution has to be examined. Before proceeding further, it is to be seen that even according to the prosecution P.W.2 was driven out of the family house on April 3,1985 while P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police on October 17,1987 i.e., about 21/2 years after the incident.