Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Godipally Rajashekar Billa on 8 June, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 88 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused
recorded vide judgment dated 11.07.2019 in S.C.No.10 of
2017 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, the
present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the
respondent/Accused was working as a Dish operator. While
the victim/P.W.1 was alone in her house on 18.06.2016, the
respondent/accused entered into the house stating that he
would set up box in her house. P.W.1 prevented the accused
from entering. However, he forcibly entered and attempted to
commit rape on her. When P.W.1 raised hue and cry, the
accused closed her mouth with his hands and hearing cries of
P.W.1, the neighbors came to her and caught hold of the
accused and handed over him to the police station. Ex.P1
complaint was lodged by P.W.1 and thereafter, having
completed investigation, the police filed charge sheet under
Sections 452, 376 r/w 511 and 307 of IPC.
2 KS, J
Crla_88_2020
3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge examined the
witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. Ex.D1 was
marked on behalf of the defence. However, no defence
witnesses were examined.
4. The grounds on which the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge acquitted the respondent/accused are that; i) P.W.2,
who is the mother of the victim and P.W.3, an independent
witness, who is neighbour gave contradicting versions of the
incident and did not in any way corroborate the evidence of
P.W.1; ii) P.W.1 failed to mention the overt acts of the accused
when he tried to commit rape; iii) admitting that the accused
caught hold of the neck of P.W.1, it does not amount to an
offence under Section 307 IPC as there are no overt acts and
no other act attracting the offence of attempt to murder.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
3 KS, J
Crla_88_2020
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.
6. 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.
(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116
4 KS, J
Crla_88_2020
(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.'"
7. P.W.3, who immediately entered into the house of P.Ws.1
and 2 had asked the respondent/accused to go away and also
stated different versions while she was examined in the court.
The evidence of P.W.1 is not cogent and not convincing and
even according to her, no evidence is forthcoming to infer
attempt to rape or attempting to murder attracting an offence
under Section 307 of IPC.
8. The finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
needs no interference as the reasons given by the learned
Judge are reasonable and inferences are drawn on the basis of
contradictory evidence, which becomes improbable to accept
that the respondent/accused had in any manner either
5 KS, J
Crla_88_2020
attempted to commit murder or attempted to rape P.W.1.
Further the medical evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6
does not in any manner corroborate with the statement of
P.W.1 either to say that the acts of respondent/accused
amounting to attempt to murder or making an attempt commit
rape.
9. In the said circumstances, when the findings of the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge are logical, the same do not
warrant any interference.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the State fails and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. As a sequel thereto,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
________________
K.SURENDER,J
Date: 08.06.2022
kvs
6 KS, J
Crla_88_2020
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No. 88 OF 2020
Date: 08.06.2022
kvs
7 KS, J
Crla_88_2020
