The State Of Telangana vs Gaddamali Balraju And 8 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3390 Tel

               HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No.508 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 9

for the offence under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)

(v) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 vide judgment dated 05.11.2019

in Spl.S.C.No.76 of 2017 passed by the Principal District and

Sessions Judge FAC Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional

District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, present appeal is

filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2015, P.W.1 filed

written complaint Ex.P1 stating that during morning hours, while

he and his younger brother-P.W.2 asked one K.Hanumanthu and

two others to keep the sheep in his field, they replied that nets were

not available but available with one Thatikonda Mallesh. P.W.2

brought the nets from said Mallesh fields and while he was working

in his fields, the respondents herein picked up quarrel and asked

him as to how the nets from the fields of Thatikonda Mallesh were

brought. They abused P.W.2 in the name of caste saying as "Madiga

Lanja Koduka Maaku Cheppakunda Valanu Yenduku

Techinaavuraa". 1st respondent took a stick and beat on PW2's

head causing bleeding injury. When P.W.1 intervened, 3rd

respondent/A3 beat him with stick and also A4 beat P.W.3 on his

head. Further, the 6th respondent also beat one Thatikonda

Venkatesh on his head. All other accused also beat them with

hands and sticks. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, SHO, PS

Koilkonda registered a case in Cr.No.55 of 2015 under Sections

307, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act,

1989 against the respondents/accused.

3. On 11.07.2015, respondents 1 to 4, 7 and 9/A1 to A4, 7 and 9

were arrested, pursuant to the confession, M.Os.1 to 5 which are

sticks were seized. The respondents were charge sheeted for the

offences mentioned supra and charged for the said offences during

trial.

4. The learned Special Sessions Judge having examined 16

witnesses and marking Exs.P1 to P45 and after adjudication, found

the respondents 1 to 9 not guilty for the following reasons. 1) the

motive behind false implication is the admission of complainant and

others that they belong to Telugu Desam Party whereas all the

respondents belong to congress party and during the Gram-

panchayat elections, there was quarrel between the groups. 2)

There are contradictions between P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the

bringing of nets from Kurva Hanumanthu or from the fields of

Thatikonda Mallesh. However, it is stated that during cross-

examination that nets were brought from Kuruva Hanumanthu and

Balaiah, but, they were not examined and nobody was present

when nets were brought. 3) P.W.2 stated that the nets were

brought from the land of A9 and erected them in his field and for

the said reason, when A3 came into field of P.W.2 and tried to take

away the nets, there was altercation and A3 abused him in filthy

language. The injured eye-witness-PW3 has turned hostile to the

prosecution case and stated that by the time he reached the place

of alleged offence, no one was present. 4) PW4 is also injured eye-

witness, who turned hostile to the prosecution case. 5) PWs.5 and 6

are also eye-witnesses to the incident but they too turned hostile to

the prosecution case. 6) All the panchas to the alleged seizures of

M.Os.1 to 5, who are P.Ws.7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 turned hostile.

5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that it

is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that these respondents are the

persons responsible for causing injuries on PWs.1 and 2. PW.14-

Doctor found injuries on PWs.1, 3 and 4. Though, the Doctor

admitted that injuries mentioned in Exs.P28 to 31-injury

certificates were possible by a person falling on hard surface,

when PWs.1 and 2 evidence is consistent regarding respondents

attacking them with sticks, the finding of the learned Special

Sessions Judge is incorrect and has to be reversed.

6. As seen from the evidence on record, except PWs.1 and 2 who

are brothers and belonging to one political party have made

complaint against the respondents herein who belong to another

political party. There is any amount of contradiction regarding the

words spoken to by the witnesses. Further, it is brought on record

during the examination of PWs.1 and 2 that some of the accused

assaulted with sticks whereas others with hands and legs. In the

event of four persons assaulting with sticks continuously, there is

no possibility of receiving only two simple injuries by PW1 and 2.

Further the alleged injured witnesses 3 and 4 did not support the

version of PWs.1 and 2 and turned hostile to the prosecution case.

Since the doctor was not shown the seized M.Os.1 to 5-sticks

during his examination, all the witnesses to the panchas of seizures

have turned hostile, no credibility can be attached to the version of

PWs.1 and 2 for the reason of their admitting that there was

political rivalry.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of Guru

Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 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. 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.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116

8. In Guru Dutt Pathak's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under : (SCC p. 432, para 42) '42. ... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

9. The findings of the learned Special Judge are cogent and

convincing. It is settled law that if an alternative view is possible

that cannot be considered in an appeal against acquittal and any

probable view supporting the accused has to be considered. For

the said reasons appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 05.07.2022 kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.508 of 2020

Date:05.07.2022

kvs