Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nunna Deepa @ Pratheema Devi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 August, 2026
APHC010476832023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 851 AND 854 OF 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 851/2023
Between:
1. NUNNA DEEPA @ PRATHEEMA DEVI, W/O. APPAJI, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.60, RISHA VILLA, M.L.A LAY-OUT, RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT HOUSE
NO.54-16-2/9, CENTRAL EXCISE COLONY, RING ROAD,
VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT.
2. NUNNA APPAJI, S/O. V.V.NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-1-76, AMMA APARTMENTS, FLAT NO.3,
THADRAPPARAYUDU CENTRE, JANGAREDDIGUDEM VILLAGE
AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING
AT D.NO.76-17-841, URMILANAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM,
VIJAYAWADA.
3. NUNNA V V NAGESWARA RAO, (DIED)
4. NUNNA MALLESWARI, W/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, D.NO.76-17-841, URMILANAGAR,
BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA.
5. NUNNA DIVYA, D/O. V.V.NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.76-17-841, URMILANAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM,
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
VIJAYAWADA.
6. KARNATA SWATHI, W/O. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
C/O. VASU MEDICAL STORES, D.NO.76-17-841, URMILANAGAR,
BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA
7. KARNATA RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, C/O. VASU MEDICAL STORES, D.NO.76-17-841,
URMILANAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KONDETI RANGA SRINIVAS
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 854/2023
Between:
1. NUNNA DEEPA @ PRATHEEMA DEVI, W/O. APPAJI, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.60, RISHA VILLA, M.L.A LAY-OUT, RT NAGAR,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT HOUSE
NO.54-16-2/9, CENTRAL EXCISE COLONY, RING ROAD,
VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT.
2. NUNNA DIVYA, D/O. V.V.NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.76-17-841, URMILANAGAR, BHAVANIPURAM,
VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DONDAPPAGARI SAI SIDDI SRIKHAR
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These two Criminal Revision Cases are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order, as they involve a common question of law,
though they arise out of different Calendar Cases. Since the Petitioner in both
the cases is one and the same, it is appropriate to dispose of them by this
common order.
2. Criminal Revision Case Nos.851 and 854 of 2023 are filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity
‘the Cr.P.C‘), challenging the judgments passed in Crl.A.Nos.452 and 453 of
2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District
and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby the learned Appellate
Court confirmed the judgment dated 05.11.2019 passed in C.C.Nos.325 and
326 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C‘)
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.
Act‘).
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Legal Aid
Counsel for Respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.851 of 2023, the learned Legal
Aid Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 7 in Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2023, and the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submits that the Courts
below erred in acquitting the accused despite there being sufficient oral and
documentary evidence establishing the demand and payment of dowry and
the cruelty meted out to the petitioner. It is submitted that Exs.P12 and P13
(medical records), Ex.P15 (tax invoices for gold ornaments), and Ex.P16 (bank
transaction receipts) corroborate the prosecution case and were not properly
appreciated. The learned counsel further argued that the Appellate Court
proceeded on an erroneous factual premise by treating PWs.5 and 6 as the
Petitioner’s parents instead of her uncle and aunt. It is contended that minor
discrepancies regarding the quantum of dowry ought not to have outweighed
the consistent evidence regarding payment of dowry and harassment.
Therefore, it is prayed that the concurrent judgments of acquittal be set aside
and the Criminal Revision Cases be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and
the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 submit that both the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court have properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and recorded well-reasoned findings of acquittal. It is
5
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the demand or payment of
dowry and the alleged acts of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. The learned
APP argued that the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner does
not conclusively prove the offences under Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ or
Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the DP Act‘. It is further contended that the alleged
discrepancies and factual errors pointed out by the Petitioner do not warrant
interference in revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, it is prayed that the Criminal
Revision Cases be dismissed.
6. Sri K. Ranga Srinivas, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2
in Crl.R.C.No.851 of 2023, and Sri D.S. Siddi Srikhar, learned Legal Aid
Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 7 in Crl.R.C.No.854 of 2023, while adopting
and supporting the submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have
properly appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence and recorded
well-reasoned concurrent findings of acquittal. It is submitted that the
prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the documentary
evidence relied upon by the petitioner does not substantiate either the demand
for dowry or the alleged acts of cruelty. The learned counsel further contended
that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or
material irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional
6
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the Criminal Revision Cases be
dismissed.
7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the judgments in Crl.A.Nos.452 and 453 of 2019 dated
21.07.2023, passed by the learned Family Court-Cum-VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, are correct, legal,
and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there
are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”
9. While deciding a Criminal Revision Case filed against acquittal of
accused, it is apposite to refer the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari
Prasad Singh v State of Bihar 1wherein at Paragraph No.13 it is held as
under:
“13. … In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure
or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court
to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been
held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach
a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest
illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional
jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 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 invoked1
(2002) 6 SCC 650
2
AIR 1951 SC 196
7
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the
law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in K Chinnaswamy Reddy v State of AP3, 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 see that it does
not, convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect
method of ordering retrial when it cannot itself directly convert a finding
of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the
power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and
it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. It is
not possible to lay down the criteria for determining such exceptional
cases which would cover all contingencies. We may, however, indicate
some cases of this kind which would in our opinion justify the High Court
in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision. These cases may be:
where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case but has still
acquitted the accused, or where the trial court has wrongly shut out
evidence which the prosecution wished to produce. or where the appeal
court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial court to
be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either
by the trial court or by the appeal court, or where the acquittal is based
on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law. These
and other cases of similar nature can properly be held to be cases of
exceptional nature, where the High Court can justifiably interfere with an
order of acquittal; an in such a case it is obvious that it cannot be said
that the High Court was doing indirectly what it could not do directly in
view of the provisions of S. 439 (4). We have, therefore, to see whether
the order of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal in this
case can be upheld on these principles.”
12. Keeping in view of all the principles laid down in the judgments referred
supra, I shall proceed to decide this Revision Case without there being any
iota of re-appreciation of evidence by sitting like a Second Appellate Court.
Therefore, appreciation of the evidence is not practically possible and feasible.
3
AIR 1962 SC 1788
8
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
13. Indeed, Exs.P12 and P13, by themselves, do not establish that the
petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the accused within the meaning of
Section 498-A of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as the medical certificates merely indicate that
she was under stress and depression without attributing the same to any
specific act of the accused. The alleged factual error regarding the relationship
of P.Ws.5 and 6, whether they are the parents or the uncle and aunt of the
petitioner, is inconsequential and does not affect the core findings of the
Appellate Court, as both are interested witnesses and no independent
evidence was adduced to corroborate the prosecution case. Therefore, the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not warrant interference
in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
14. Accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant/petitioner,
and Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are her relatives. In order to establish the guilt of
the accused/respondents, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked
Exs.P1 to P26. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. Upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial
Court acquitted the accused of the charges. The learned Appellate Court, on
an independent reappraisal of the evidence, concurred with the findings of the
Trial Court, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence adduced suffered
from material contradictions and inconsistencies.
9
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
15. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side and on perusal of the judgments of the Courts below,
this Court finds that both the Courts have assigned cogent and valid reasons
for recording an order of acquittal. The findings are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any perversity,
patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity warranting
interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and
401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ No exceptional circumstance is made out to interfere with
the concurrent findings of acquittal.
16. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are devoid of merit and
are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dt: 03.08.2026
KMS
10
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.R.C.Nos.851 and 854 of 2023
Dated 03.08.2026
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS: 851 AND 854 OF 2019
Date: 03.08.2026
KMS
