Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Sadula Rajaiah Rajam on 11 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(3) & (1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the State
aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents - accused Nos.1 and 2 for
the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed
in Sessions Case No.188 of 2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge -
cum - Assistant Sessions Judge at Manthani.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2014 at 09.00
PM, accused Nos.1 and 2 who are husband and wife trespassed into
the house of PW1 and while accused No.2 caught hold of the injured,
accused No.1 attacked him with an axe, as a result he sustained injury
on his forehead. On the basis of the complaint that was lodged by
the complainant - PW1 in the early hours of the next day, the police
investigated the case and filed charge sheet against accused No.1
for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of the IPC.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable
under Sections 448 and 307 of IPC against accused No.1 and charges
were also framed. Subsequently, as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.67 of
2018 dated 02.07.2018, the Court concerned took cognizance
Crl.A.No.1031_2023
against accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448
and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and charges were also framed.
3. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs 1 to 13 and marked
Exs.P1 to P14 and MO1. Having considered the evidence on record,
the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 448 and 307 read with Section 34 of the
IPC, on the grounds that PWs 2 to 7 who went to the house of PWs 1
and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were
declared hostile. PW3 reached the house of PW1 on hearing some
sounds, however, he did not identify the accused in the Court. PW1
informed that one Mekala Rajaiah attacked PW2 with an axe and
identified accused No.1 as Mekala Rajaiah, however, the identity of
accused No.1 was not established in the Court. Though, PW1 was
treated as hostile, the investigating officer did not collect the medical
certificate and there is no explanation as to why it was not collected.
The doctor - PW12 did not confirm that PW2 sustained injury to her left
eye or forehead. Accordingly, there was no supporting medical
evidence. Though MO1 - axe was recovered, the same could not be
proved, since the contents of the panchanama leading to discovery
of MO1 was not proved.
Crl.A.No.1031_2023
4. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of
PWs 1 and 2 is sufficient to convict the accused and that it was the
accused who had attacked them. For the said reason, the appeal
has to be allowed and respondents - accused have to be convicted.
5. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider
whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason
is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence
in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be
relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal.
6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled
principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the
order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
Crl.A.No.1031_2023
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb
the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and
compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would
have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the
trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons"
exist when:
The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably
wrong:
i) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of
law;
ii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice";
iii) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal;
iv) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
v) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents like
dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vi) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate
courts must rule in favour of the accused."
7. The appellate Court cannot reverse an order of acquittal,
unless the reasons are compelling. Though the incident is severe in
nature, the same is not corroborated by medical evidence; all the
independent witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case
and the recovery of MO1 is also not proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity with
the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions
Judge has given adequate reasons for recording acquittal. There are
Crl.A.No.1031_2023
no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the State fails and the
same is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date: 11.12.2023
ns
