Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Arun Kumar Chaurasia on 29 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1003 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
1. The State has preferred the present appeal questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2022 in C.C.No.244 of 2022, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar. The offence alleged against the respondent/accused is punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2021, on reliable information, PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 went to the house of one Kummari Muthyalu near the post office of Nandigama Village. Search was conducted in the said house and accused was found in possession of (4) packets of ganja, which was consisting of 9 grams each. Having found the said ganja, the said (4) packets of ganja, total weighing 36 grams was seized under cover of panchnama and after investigation, charge sheet was filed.
3. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against the accused for the following reasons:
2
i) The panch witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case.
ii) The prosecution was not able to narrate the exact location where the ganja was seized.
iii) The prosecution did not establish that the premises belongs to PW5 and the accused was tenant of PW5.
iv) No independent witnesses or neighbours of the said premises were examined.
v) In the absence of prosecution proving that the accused was in exclusive possession of the said premises, the question of convicting the accused does not arise.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason as to why the evidence of PW1 who is a public servant should not be believed. In fact the seized packets were also sent to FSL report and the same was filed during the course of trial.
5. The learned Magistrate found that the investigating officer stated that though he prepared panchnama, he did not obtain signatures on it and that he did not collect any material to show that PW5 was owner nor that accused was residing as a tenant in the said house.
3
6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons"
to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii)The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
8. In the absence of the prosecution proving exclusive possession of the premises from where the alleged ganja was seized, the accused cannot be mulcted with criminal liability on the basis of assumption that the premises belongs to the accused. The police have failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2023 gvl 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1003 OF 2023 29.11.2023 gvl