Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P., vs Lingala Mallesh Yadav, on 3 March, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1097 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 (Cr.P.C.) challenging the
judgment dated 26.06.2007 rendered in S.C.No.355 of 2005
wherein and whereby the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Sangareddy, acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326 and
324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Boini
Eshwar lodged a report on 09.05.2005 at 9.00 pm stating
that on the same day at 6.00 pm, all the accused persons
armed with axe and sticks attacked him and one Boini Yadav
with a common intention and beat them with axe and sticks
causing them severe bleeding injuries. Hence, the case.
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
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent
1 (2011) 9 SCC 479
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
and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all
supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the
2 (2011) 8 SCC 635
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 26.06.2007 passed in S.C.No.355 of 2005 on
the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
_________________
(G. SRI DEVI, J)
3rd March 2021
RRB
