Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs B.Giri, on 12 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.233 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the accused/respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/State under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the judgment in C.C.No.33 of 2001 dated 18.03.2002 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Ranga Reddy District, whereby, the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to fine under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. However, finding the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 452 of IPC which is punishable for house trespass and causing hurt.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that once the Court has believed the version of 2 prosecution that the accused have gone to the house of PW.1 and caused injury, convicting them under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitting them under Section 425 of IPC is erroneous.
4. 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.
5. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 3 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:
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 4 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."
6. The incident is of the year 1992 and charge sheet was filed in the year 1993. The trial went on for nearly 10 years and learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 452 of IPC for criminal trespass.
7. Having gone through the record, the learned Magistrate had given adequate reasons stating that the incident did not happen within the house premises, as such, the incident of 452 of IPC does not arise. I do not find any reasons to differ with the findings of the learned Magistrate. 5
8. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:12.09.2024 mmr