Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Andela Lingam Yadav 26 Others on 12 August, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.449 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Appellant-State filed the present Criminal Appeal by
invoking the provision under Section 378(1) and (3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) challenging the
judgment dated 07.03.2014 rendered in S.C.No.78 of 2012
wherein and whereby the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases at Nalgonda, acquitted the
respondents/A-1 to A-8 and A-10 to 28 (A-9 died) for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 448 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs
(POA) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the A.P. Medicare Services
Persons and Medicate Institutions Ordinance, 2007.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that all the
accused, being public representatives like MPTC etc., of
Choutuppal Mandal and belong to different social groups
including SC/ST went to the private nursing home of L.W.1
(K.Alivelu) on 13.02.2000 at 1.00 pm and abused her in the
name of her caste as "SC vai vundi neeku yenduku intha
pogaru, intha mandi proja prathinidulanu mee intiki
rappinchuntava" and "Nuvvente maaku paddathi nerpedi,
nenu chesinde paddathi, ninnu ikkadinundi cheyipattukoni
Mandal Officeku lakupothamu". Further, all the accused
have threatened her with dire consequences like wrongful
confinement and burning her house. Hence, the case.
On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections
147, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section
3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the
A.P. Medicare Services Persons and Medicate Institutions
Ordinance, 2007, came to be framed, read over and explained
to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined
P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. After closure of
the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. No oral or documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of the accused.
The trial Court, on appraisal of the entire evidence both
oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has not
proved the offences under Sections 147, 448 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs
(POA) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the A.P. Medicare Services
Persons and Medicate Institutions Ordinance, 2007, against
the accused and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by
the same, the appellant/State preferred this appeal.
This Court perused the entire impugned judgment and
also heard the arguments.
In view of the latches, lacunas and deviations in the
case of the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused
persons. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are
well in accordance with law and the trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective.
Further, in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this
Court is very limited and if any perversity or illegality appears
on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere
with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in
an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere
only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing
towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of
two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is
taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the
competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order
passed by the trial Court.
In Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura1 the Apex Court
held as under:
"It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal
in the absence of perversity in the judgment and
order, interference by this Court exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted.
However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate
court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent
to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence
and take its own decision. In other words, law does
not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition
on exercise of such power and the appellate court is
free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind
that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of
the accused. The presumption of innocence is
1 (2011) 9 SCC 479
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent
court. If two reasonable views are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is
no limitation on the part of the appellate court to
review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is found and to come to its own
conclusion. The appellate court can also review the
conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect
to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the
duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire
evidence on record and only by giving cogent and
adequate reasons set aside the judgment of
acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered
with only when there are "compelling and
substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is
"clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference. When the trial Court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence or has
ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision
of the trial Court depending on the materials
placed."
In Maloth Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 the
Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that
merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and
another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot
be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious
responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal
2 (2011) 8 SCC 635
and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all
supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of
acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to
examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the
acquittal, has taken such care.
In view of the judgments referred to above and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment dated 07.03.2014 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2012 by
the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act
Cases at Nalgonda.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
_________________
(G. SRI DEVI, J)
12th August 2021
RRB
