Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P. vs B. Shankaraiah 10 Others on 4 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.819 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The State has filed the present appeal aggrieved by the
acquittal of the respondents vide judgment in Crl.A.No.31 of
2007 dated 03.09.2007 passed by the I Additional Sessions
Judge at Mahabubnagar.
2. Initially, the respondents were tried by the Assistant
Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar vide SC No.452 of 2005 for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 427 r/w 149 of
IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the
respondent 1 and 2 guilty for the offence under Section 325 of
PC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and A1 to A4,
A6 to A8, A14, A15, A18 and A19 were found guilty for the
charge under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to pay
Rs.3,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2005, the
respondents along with others went to the house of P.W.1 and
demanded the amount for construction of Anjaneya Swamy
Temple. When P.W.1 refused, the respondents and others
entered tin an unlawful assembly and attacked with sticks,
rods and tones.
4. The prosecution examined P.W.1, who is the defacto
complainant, and the wife of PW.1, i.e., P.W.2, P.W.4, an
independent witness, all have stated that the respondents had
entered the house of P.W.1 and on failure to pay the amount,
P.W.1 was attacked with sticks.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, on appeal, found mainly no
the ground that the story as narrated by the prosecution
witnesses is highly improbable and further the animosity in
between the respondents and the prosecution witnesses was
apparent. The crime No.21 of 2005 was registered against
PWs.4 and 5.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that it is
the specific case of the witnesses that the respondents formed
into an unlawful assembly and attacked P.W.1 and others. As
such, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge has to be
reversed and the respondents be convicted.
7. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge
regarding the animosity between the prosecution witnesses
and the respondents is borne by record. Further, it appears
that there was a free fight amongst the respondents and
prosecution witnesses. In the said circumstances, when there
are no specific overt acts attributing to any of the witnesses
except stating that they formed into an unlawful assembly,
finding of the learned Sessions Judge, which is based on
evidence and reasonable, cannot be interfered with.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian
criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental
protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation.
Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and
secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation.
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
Both these facets attain even greater significance where the
accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment
of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the
accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false
implication. But then, this has to be established on record of
the Court.
9. In view of above facts and circumstances, there are no
grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal of the
respondents.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 04.08.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.819 of 2009
Date:04.08.2022
kvs
