The State Of A.P., vs Goparavena Komuramma
2021 Latest Caselaw 444 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 444 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2021

Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P., vs Goparavena Komuramma on 16 February, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1432 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

Appellant-State filed the present Criminal Appeal by invoking

the provision under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2007 rendered in

S.C.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial

of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Karimnagar, wherein and

whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents/A1,

A2, A4 and A6 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.11.2006 at

1700 hours, the de-facto complainant lodged a report stating that

due to land disputes, the accused had intentionally insulted the de-

facto complainant by abusing him in filthy language in the name of

his caste. Based on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.75 of 2006

was registered against the accused for the offence under

Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and

perused the record.

4. A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the

learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence and

the documents, observed that there was clear discrepancy in the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 with regard to the abusive words made by

the accused towards the de-facto complainant in the name of his GSD, J Crl.A.No.1432 of 2009

caste, and acquitted the accused. The learned Sessions Judge after

appreciating the entire evidence in proper perspective has rightly

acquitted the accused. 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.

5. 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 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

1 (2011) 9 SCC 479 GSD, J Crl.A.No.1432 of 2009

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."

6. 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 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.

7. 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