Wife Cannot Revive Husband's Conviction When Both Accused Were Acquitted on the Same Evidence, Says Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a wife seeking to restore her husband's conviction under Section 498-A after the appellate court had acquitted him on the same evidence that exonerated his co-accused sister.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, on 21 July 2026, dismissed a criminal revision case filed by Chirumamilla Suneetha, the de facto complainant and wife of first respondent Chirumamilla Suresh, who had challenged the appellate court's decision to set aside her husband's conviction for offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Justice Subhendu Samanta, sitting singly, found no illegality or impropriety in the reasoning of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whose order of 31 December 2007 had reversed the trial court's conviction. The central basis for the appellate acquittal — and the revision court's endorsement of it — was that the allegations and evidence against the husband and his sister were inseparable, making it impossible to sustain one conviction once the other accused had been acquitted on the very same material.

The Prosecution Case and Trial Court's Verdict

Chirumamilla Suneetha initiated prosecution against her husband, Chirumamilla Suresh (A.1), and his sister, P. Suneetha (A.2). Her complaint alleged that A.1, at the instigation of A.2, subjected her to mental cruelty and demanded dowry. Both accused were charged under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The V Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Guntur, after hearing parties, convicted A.1 for all three offences by judgment dated 29 June 2006. However, the same court acquitted A.2 of all charges. That divergence — conviction of the husband and acquittal of the sister on materially the same evidence — became the central issue on appeal.

The Appellate Court's Reversal

A.1 challenged his conviction before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2006. The appellate court undertook a fresh appreciation of the evidence on record and concluded that the allegations against both accused were founded on the same facts and the same evidence. Given that A.2 had already been found not guilty, the appellate court held that there was no legal basis to sustain A.1's conviction in the absence of any independent evidence distinguishing his role.

The Sessions Judge accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A.1 by judgment dated 31 December 2007. Suneetha, as the de facto complainant, then filed the present criminal revision case before the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a delay of 190 days, which was separately the subject of a condonation application.

The High Court's Reasoning

Justice Samanta examined the impugned appellate judgment and agreed with the Sessions Judge's approach. The court observed that the prosecution case rested on the allegation that A.1 acted at the instigation of A.2 and that both were implicated as main perpetrators in the same set of acts. The evidence marshalled against them was not severable.

The High Court noted that the trial court had convicted A.1 and acquitted A.2 on the strength of the same evidence — an internally inconsistent outcome. The appellate court's finding that the allegations against both accused were inseparable was, in the revision court's view, well-founded. Once the evidence was held insufficient to establish A.2's guilt, that same evidence could not, without more, sustain A.1's conviction.

Justice Samanta specifically referred to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the appellate judgment, holding that they disclosed proper appreciation of the evidence. The court found no independent incriminating material that was exclusively directed against A.1 and that could have been isolated from the general body of evidence that the appellate court had found wanting.

The revision court did not disturb the acquittal of A.2, which had not been separately challenged in this proceeding. Its inquiry was limited to whether the Sessions Judge had erred in extending the benefit of that acquittal to A.1 as well. The court found that the Sessions Judge had not erred.

Outcome

Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed Criminal Revision Case No. 1643 of 2009, finding it devoid of merit. The order of acquittal passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, on 31 December 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2006 stands. Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the revision case were ordered to stand closed.