Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Jaitnuram Jaithram Mankani on 6 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.823 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offences under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2022, the victim PW-2 and his wife PW-1 went to the police station and lodged a written complaint stating that her husband PW-2 along with other villagers i.e., the respondent/accused, Mankani Santhos, Katakwar Goutham Singh, Solanki Prathap Singh, Chouhan Srinivas, Mankani Baji Singh and others shared their cooli amount. However, during sharing of the amount, accused gave Rs.200 less. For the said reason PW-2 picked up quarrel with accused. Later, all of them purchased beer bottles at Nirmal Town and went to an open place outside Gowliguda Village and started consuming the beer. Keeping the earlier incident in mind of PW-2 questioning the accused regarding the amount of Rs.200 not being shared, the accused hit PW-2 on his left jaw with an intention to murder him.
2
4. On the basis of complaint and examining the witnesses, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
5. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds:
1. The exact location where the incident had taken place was not proved by the prosecution.
2. The first witnesses Mankani Santhos, Katakwar Goutham Singh, Solanki Prathap Singh, Chouhan Srinivas, Mankani Baji Singh and Mankani Kana Singh, who were named in the F.I.R were not examined before court.
3. Ex.P2 is the injury certificate which reflects that PW-2 received a simple injury.
4. An un-broken beer bottle was collected during the investigation, however, the injury was caused by a sharp object and a beer bottle cannot be a sharp object.
5. Though MO-1 i.e., broken glass pieces of beer bottle were deposited, however it was not of the brand kingfisher since it was stated that the assault was with the kingfisher beer bottle.3
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PW-2 who is injured, stated about the assault by the accused resulting in his injury. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have recorded conviction.
7. On the other hand, Mr.D.Kulashekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused has argued supporting the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.
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. Admittedly, the injury received by PW-2 was a simple injury that too with an unbroken beer bottle. It cannot be said that the accused had an intention to commit the murder of PW-2.
11. No reasons are given as to why the eye witnesses named in the complaint were not examined and given up by the prosecution during the course of the trial.
5
12. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge while recording the acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:06.01.2025 aqs 6 196 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.823 OF 2024 Dt. 06.01.2025 aqs