The State Of Telangana vs Gannoju Shekar Vadla Shekar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3169 Tel

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.143 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. The State challenging the acquittal of the respondent

under Section 304-II of IPC by the Assistant Sessions Judge

at Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Sessions Judge') vide

judgment in S.C.No.302 of 2016, dated 30.03.2019, filed the

present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2016, the

deceased and P.W.1, who is the daughter-in-law of the

deceased were sitting in front of their house. The accused

was proceeding in front of the house of the deceased and

abused the deceased. When questioned, the accused

assaulted the deceased, pushed him on to the ground, beat

him with stones and stick over the back and caused injuries

to head, right side eye, left elbow and back and fled. For the

said reason, on the next date i.e., 12.04.2016, on the basis

of the complaint filed, First Information Report was

registered for the offence under Section 324 of IPC against

the accused. However, while undergoing treatment, the

deceased was shifted to NIMS Hospital and he died on 2 KS,J

Crla_143_2020

14.04.2016. After death, the body was sent for postmortem

examination and the cause of death was shown as 'death is

due to head injury'.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

P.W.1, who was present when the incident took place, has

specifically stated that it was the appellant, who has beaten

the deceased. Pursuant to the confession, one stick and

stones were also recovered vide MOs 1 and 2. Since the

Doctor had specifically stated that the deceased died of head

injury and the acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions

Judge has to be reversed and the respondent/accused has

to be convicted for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.

4. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge has acquitted the

respondent/accused on the following grounds; i) none of the

witnesses have specifically stated that the respondent has

beaten the deceased on the head; ii) there is a delay of 13 ½

hours in lodging the complaint and the said delay is not

explained by the prosecution; iii) the inquest panchas

during the inquest proceedings Ex.P3 did not find any head

injury and it was opined by the panchas that the deceased

might have died due to injuries or old age; iv) The reason for 3 KS,J

Crla_143_2020

altercation between the respondent and the deceased was

about the theft committed by the respondent. However,

there is no evidence from the prosecution side to suggest

that the respondent had indulged in any kind of theft at any

point of time.

5. As seen from the record, P.W.1, who is the daughter-

in-law of the deceased only stated that the

respondent/accused had beaten her father-in-law.

However, she did not give specific details as to how the said

beating occurred. According to P.W.1, she was an eye

witness to the incident and the trial Court found her to be

an interested witness. She states that she was discussing

with the deceased regarding theft of petty items from their

house. Upon which, the respondent/accused got enraged

and abused the deceased and beat him with the available

stones and stick.

6. The very basis for the alleged altercation was some

theft alleged to have been committed by the

respondent/accused. However, the prosecution has not

proved that there were any cases of theft pending against

the respondent/accused or that the respondent committed 4 KS,J

Crla_143_2020

any theft at any point of time. Further, P.W.1 did not

specifically give details of the injuries sustained by the

deceased in the hands of the respondent/accused. P.Ws.2

and 3 are other eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution

to state that the respondent/appellant had beaten the

deceased. However, during the course of cross-examination,

they stated that they were not present when beating had

taken place and they have arrived at the scene after the

alleged beating.

7. The delay in lodging the complaint on the next date

after the assault has taken place remains unexplained by

the prosecution. Under what circumstances the delay of

13½ hours occurred. The prosecution has to explain the

head injury in the absence of any specific eyewitness stating

regarding the respondent/accused beating the deceased on

the head. It is further necessary, in the back ground of

there being 13 ½ hours delay in lodging the complaint. It

raises a doubt as to whether the deceased received head

injury at the hands of the respondent/accused.

 5                                                                            KS,J

                                                                    Crla_143_2020

8.        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.

9. 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)

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116 6 KS,J

Crla_143_2020

'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.'

10. The finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

while recording the acquittal cannot be held to be improper

or incorrect. The findings are based on the evidence on

record and in the absence of any specific acts of the

respondent/accused to substantiate that it was the

respondent/accused only who had injured the deceased

resulting in his death, there cannot be any interference of

the well reasoned judgment of the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge.

 7                                                            KS,J

                                                    Crla_143_2020

9. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the State fails

to make out any reasons for reversing the judgment of

acquittal, as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be

dismissed and accordingly dismissed. As a sequel thereto,

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

                                           __________________
                                            K.SURENDER, J
Date: 30.6.2022
kvs
 8                                                   KS,J

                                           Crla_143_2020

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER




          Criminal Appeal No.143 of 2020




                 Date:30.06.2022




kvs
 9            KS,J

    Crla_143_2020