Telangana High Court

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Ugge Santosh on 24 March, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

                  HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1793 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

The appellant-State filed the present appeal by invoking the

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

Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 12.08.2008 in

Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of

Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Adilabad, wherein and

whereby the learned Special Judge acquitted the

respondent/accused for the offence punishable under

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

Sections 324 and 506 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.06.2007 at

about 9.30 PM, while the de-facto complainant was returning home

after starting the water pump of the Gram Panchayat, the accused

abused him in the name of his caste without any reason and beat

him with an empty cheap liquor bottle on his stomach and also

threatened him with dire consequences. Based on the complaint

given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Cr.No.72 of 2007 was

registered for the offences under Sections 324, 506 IPC and under

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

3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant-

State, Sri L. Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent/accused and perused the record.

4. After re-appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the trial GSD, J Crl.A.No.1793 of 2009

Court, after appraising the entire evidence on record, found that the

prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond

shadow of reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is that

the accused, after breaking up the cheap liquor bottle at the place of

occurrence, attacked P.W.1 with the same on his stomach and then,

he tried to stab him with the same on his stomach. In this regard, all

the four witnesses have narrated the same and deposed before the

Court. However, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 did not find favour to

the case of the prosecution because of the reason that the said

evidence was quite contradictory to the evidence of the panch

witness-P.W.6 and also the Medical Officer-P.W.7, who had given

treatment to P.W.1. P.W.6 has categorically deposed before the

Court that the panchanama with respect to the scene of offence was

only conducted in his presence by P.W.9 under Ex.P.3, and after the

rough sketch-Ex.P4 drawn by the police, he signed the same.

Thereafter, P.W.9-Investigating Officer deposed before the Court.

However, there was no evidence from the side of these two

witnesses regarding the presence of broken pieces of liquor bottle at

the scene of offence, as deposed by P.Ws.1 to 4, that itself goes to

show that there was no such incident at the alleged place of

occurrence. Hence, the presence of prosecution witnesses is also

doubtful. However, after lodging of FIR, P.W.1 was sent to the

hospital for treatment. The evidence of Medical Officer-P.W.7 goes GSD, J Crl.A.No.1793 of 2009

to show that the injuries as narrated by P.W.1 were not supported by

the medical evidence. According to P.W.1, the accused attacked him

with a broken liquor bottle and attempted to stab him on his

stomach. However, according to P.W.7, all the injuries are contusion

on the forearm and abrasion on the back of the chest, and according

to the opinion of P.W.7, such injuries could be possible due to fall on

the ground or while running or by falling from the vehicle. It was not

the case of P.W.1 that he also sustained other injuries apart from the

injury on his stomach. Interestingly, on examination of P.W.1 by

P.W.7, no injury whatsoever was found on his stomach, which also

goes to show that there was no incident occurred on the alleged

date of occurrence. Moreover, none of the independent witnesses

have been examined by the police during investigation. The ocular

evidence does not support the case of the prosecution with medical

evidence. Thus, on re-appraisal of the entire evidence, I have no

hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to

prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus,

the trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence available on

record, has rightly acquitted the accused for the offences under

Sections 324 and 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs

(POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity

in the findings of the trial Court.

GSD, J Crl.A.No.1793 of 2009

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 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

1 (2011) 9 SCC 479

2 (2011) 8 SCC 635 GSD, J Crl.A.No.1793 of 2009

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.