Smt. Anju Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2515 of 2013
A.F.R.

Smt. Anju Sharma
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, Manish Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akshat Sinha, Govt. Advocate, Pradeep
Kumar Mishra, Shashank Tripathi,
Sudhanshu Pandey, Vinay Saran(Senior
Adv.)
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist -
1. Smt. Anju
assailing judgment and order dated 5.3.2011 passed by the
Sharma
A.C.M.M. 1st, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 3994 of 2008, arising out
of case crime no. 337 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar
whereby the trial court acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 from the
charges framed against them and the judgment and order dated 24.8.2013
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar in
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2011 whereby the appeal filed against the said
order dated 5.3.2011 has been dismissed and the said order has been
affirmed.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that informant - Smt. Anju Sharma was
married on 25.04.2007 to Gaurav Sharma son of S.C. Sharma, resident of
House No. 114 W-2, Basant Bihar, Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar
according to Hindu rites and rituals. In the marriage, sufficient dowry was
given, but her husband Gaurav Sharma, mother-in-law Maya Sharma, father-
in-law S.C. Sharma, brother-in-law (Jeth) Gagan Sharma and uncle-in-law
(Chachiya Sasur) Mahesh Chandra Sharma were not satisfied with the same
and right after the marriage, the said persons began taunting her for bringing
insufficient dowry and demanded a car and Rs. 50,000/- in cash and over

CRLR No. 2515 of 2013
2
this demand, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. On several dates,
she was tortured and beat severely, causing her to fall semi-unconscious.
They repeatedly threatened that if the demand was not fulfilled, they would
kill her and dispose of her body. Consequently, a case was registered based
on the written complaint. Investigation started and after completion of
investigation and necessary formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted
charge sheet. Following the submission of the charge sheet, cognizance was
taken against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and they were summoned to face trial.
3. The accused persons appeared and charges under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against them. The
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Trial started and in
order to prove its case on behalf of the prosecution, five witnesses, namely,
PW-1 Amit Pandey, PW-2 Constable 2732 Ramdas, PW-3 Smt. Anju
Sharma, PW-4 Smt. Rani Pandey, PW-5 Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar, were
examined.
4. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated that
false statements have been given by the witnesses and no such incident, as
alleged, ever took place. They further stated that PW-3 and PW-4 had given
poison to Gaurav and a case was registered against them and this false case
was filed merely to make pressure upon them in counter blast.
5. The learned trial court upon scrutiny of the evidence on record concluded
that the case of prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against
the accused persons and recorded acquittal, as mentioned here-in-above.
Aggrieved with the said judgment and order, the revisionist - wife filed
criminal appeal before the appellate Court, which after hearing the parties
and considering the matter in detail, affirmed the order of acquittal. Hence,
this criminal revision.
6. Heard Shri Anurag Vajpayee and Ms. Neha Chawla, learned counsel for
the revisionist, Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite
party nos. 2 to 8 and Shri Shakeel Ahmad, learned AGA appearing for State
of U.P.
7. Learned counsel for revisionist contended that the Trial Court has not
properly appreciated the evidence in acquitting the opposite party nos. 2 to 8

CRLR No. 2515 of 2013
3
and the Appellate Court has also not considered the matter in right
perspective and illegally affirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the trial court. It is also submitted that both the concerned Courts
have mistaken and ignored the material evidence produced by the
prosecution and have not considered the statement of PW-3 - wife who has
supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the opposite party
nos. 2 to 8 were making demand of additional dowry and due to non-
fulfillment of the said demands, the victim was subjected to cruelty and
harassment. The trial court has wrongly acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 to
8 basically on the grounds that there was no injury report of the revisionist
on record, the FIR was lodged belatedly without any plausible explanation
regarding the delay and the father of the victim was not examined before the
Court during trial. The impugned orders are perverse and illegal and have
been passed without application of judicial mind and are against the material
facts available on record and both the Courts have wrongly ignored the
evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has proved its case
against opposite party nos. 2 to 8 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
impugned judgement and orders are liable to be set-aside and the criminal
revision is liable to be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 and
8.
the learned AGA for the State have submitted that the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and the order of Appellate
Court affirming the said order of acquittal are not perverse and are based on
correct appreciation of facts and evidence available on record. The present
prosecution has been launched against the opposite party nos. 2 to 8 in
counter blast, as the revisionist / wife had poisoned her husband - opposite
party no.2 at her parental house but he survived and for this offence an FIR
under Section 328 IPC was lodged against her for which she was sent to
jail. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the matter and the instant
revision is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned
judgment and orders carefully.
From a perusal of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
10.
revisionist, it is evident that he wants to take this Court to the judgments of
trial court and the appellate court and made his endeavor to show that the
view taken by the concerned Courts in appreciating the evidence is not
correct. However, this Court finds difficult in accepting above submission
for the reason that in revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot sit in appeal

CRLR No. 2515 of 2013
4
and re-appreciate the evidence. It is not shown that any finding recorded by
both the Courts is contrary to record or perverse or that any material
evidence has been ignored or misread. In the assessment of evidence, if
concerned Courts have taken a view, unless it is shown that such view is
impermissible, no interference is called for.
The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an
11.
appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to
correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not
be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional court in a Court of
Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and
revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained.
12. Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898,
pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla,
AIR 1951 SC 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of
Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by
private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been
appealed against by Government under Section 417. It could be exercised
only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require
interference for correction of a manifest illegality, or prevention of a gross
miscarriage of justice. In other words, revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has taken a wrong
view of law or misappreciated the evidence on record.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of
held that revisional jurisdiction
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788
should be exercised by High Court in exceptional cases only when there is
some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law
resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in
which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If
Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or
relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked
etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power
and not otherwise.
14. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs.
;
Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707 Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa,
;
AIR 1970 SC 272 Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain,
AIR 1975 SC 580 ; Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan
Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659 ; and, Johar and others Vs. Mandal
Prasad and another, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1627 (S.C.) .

CRLR No. 2515 of 2013
5
In , Court
15. Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649
reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely
restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. While
exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision, Court would be justified in
refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether concurrent
findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was
correct.
16. In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585 , Court
reiterating the above view and said that in revisional jurisdiction High Court
would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on
a question of fact.
17. In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC
631 , Court said:
"The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be
exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the
High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the
trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be
exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the
continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the
facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the
face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for
which the accused has been charged."
18. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another,
, in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal,
2004(7) SCC 665
revisional power of High Court was examined and Court said:
"4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher
and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are
required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section
401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and
the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same
time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross
miscarriage of justice."
19. More so, if an appeal is filed against acquittal despite the fact that
plenary power of Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which
order of acquittal is founded has been recognized by a Three Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 and it has been followed in Girija
Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007(7) SCC 625
and , still Court has
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran, 2007(3) SCC 755

CRLR No. 2515 of 2013
6
held that in the matter of acquittal there are certain other principles which
are to be kept in mind.
20. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2007(4) SCC 415 , Court said
that an Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly,
the accused having secured his acquittal, presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by Trial Court.
Further in
21. State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta,
2012(1) SCC 602 , Court said that High Court is required to see that unless
there are substantial and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is
not required to be reversed in appeal. All these authorities have been referred
and followed in
Shivasharanappa and others vs. State of Karnatapa and
.
others, 2013(5) SCC 705
22. In the case of K. Ravi vs. State of Tamilnadu and another, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2283, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised
in a routine manner and should be exercised very sparingly.
Placing reliance on several landmark precedents, the Apex Court in the
23.
case of Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 184,
reaffirmed that there is a limit on the powers of the High Court as a
Revisional Court and Section 401 CrPC prohibits the High Court to convert
a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
24. Recently, in Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Another,
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1443 differentiating between an appellate
jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C., the Apex Court
reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal
Procedure is fundamentally distinct from appellate jurisdiction. Unlike an
appeal, which is a continuation of the original proceedings and entails a
rehearing on facts and law, the power of revision is a discretionary
supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court and the Court of
Session, to satisfy themselves as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of
the subordinate criminal court. The revisional court does not ordinarily
function as a court of appeal, nor is it expected to undertake a fresh
appreciation of the entire evidence merely because another view is possible.

CRLR No. 2515 of 2013
7
Consequently, the revisional court ordinarily interferes only where there
exists a patent error of law, a material irregularity in the exercise of
jurisdiction, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law or findings
which are so unreasonable or perverse that they occasion a failure of justice.
The powers conferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are, therefore,
supervisory and corrective rather than appellate.
25. In the present case, above principles are not only applicable in entirety
but makes the jurisdiction of this Court further narrower for the reason that
here the judgment of acquittal has been challenged in revision where the
scope of judicial review is further limited, as already discussed above, and
not as wide as that of Appellate Court. Therefore, unless there is a patent and
culpable illegality justifying interference in judgment of acquittal, this Court
shall not and should not interfere in the matter. Since this Court does
not find any illegality, material irregularity, perversity, impropriety or
incorrectness in the impugned orders, there is no sufficient ground for
interfering with or for setting it aside the acquittal and converting the same
into conviction. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
26. The Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed . Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court alongwith
27.
trial court record.
October 24, 2026
safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad