THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.240 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
1. The State is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal vide judgment in SC No.32 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal.
2. A1 and A2 were tried for the offence under Section 304-II IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was engaged by the accused for demolishing a building which was in dilapidated condition. Though the deceased wanted to demolish the building from the top, the accused had asked the deceased to demolish from the bottom. When the deceased was working in the ground floor, portion of the wall collapsed resulting in grievous injuries and consequent death.
3. Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to establish that the demolished house was belonging to A2 and that A1 was the person who engaged the services of the deceased to demolish the house. The particulars of the ownership of the dilapidated house were also not filed by the prosecution. The 2 Investigating Officer admitted that no proof was filed to connect A2 with the said building.
4. Learned Sessions Judge further found that though P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 have stated that A1 had taken the deceased and P.W.5 to work in the dilapidated house, the prosecution case cannot be believed since the very basis for calling the deceased to demolish was that the house belonging to A2, which was not proved.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the evidence of P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased and P.W.5, who is the other labourer who went along with the deceased is enough to infer that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased and they are liable to be convicted under Section 304-II of IPC.
6. To attract an offence under Section 304-II IPC, a person should have committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If the act committed by an accused results in the death and such act is done without any intention having knowledge that such bodily injury is likely to cause death would amount to an offence under Section 304 IPC.
3
7. The deceased and another was engaged to demolish a house. It is not the case that the accused were at the place when the incident has taken place. Even according to the witnesses, the accused have not done any act having knowledge that such act would cause death of the deceased.
8. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
9. 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:
1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 4 "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:
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."
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.09.2023 kvs 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.240 OF 2021 Date: 25.09.2023 kvs