Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P, vs Gunda Laxminarasaiah on 3 March, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1069 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 13.11.2006
rendered in C.C.No.219 of 2002 wherein and whereby the Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda, acquitted the
respondents/accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of
P.W.1 and P.W.4 was celebrated on 28.05.1997 as per the Hindu
customs and the parents of P.W.1 gave Rs.2,50,000/- cash and 30
tulas of gold at the time of marriage as 'pasupukunkuma'. After
two years, all the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring additional
dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and when she expressed the inability of her
parents, all the accused ill-treated her and sent out P.Ws.1 and 4
from the house. When P.Ws.1 and 4 were living at Palvai Village,
on 10.09.2001 at about 5.00 pm, all the accused went there and
demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, the case.
This Court perused the entire impugned judgment and also
heard the arguments.
In view of the inconsistencies and material contradictions in
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 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
1 (2011) 9 SCC 479
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 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.
2 (2011) 8 SCC 635
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment dated 13.11.2006 passed in C.C.No.219 of 2002 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Deverakonda.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
_________________
(G. SRI DEVI, J)
3rd March 2021
RRB
