Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Arun Kumar Chaurasia on 29 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1003 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
1. The State has preferred the present appeal questioning the
judgment of acquittal dated 18.11.2022 in C.C.No.244 of 2022,
passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar. The offence alleged against
the respondent/accused is punishable under Section 20(b) of
NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2021, on
reliable information, PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 went to the house of one
Kummari Muthyalu near the post office of Nandigama Village.
Search was conducted in the said house and accused was found
in possession of (4) packets of ganja, which was consisting of
9 grams each. Having found the said ganja, the said (4) packets
of ganja, total weighing 36 grams was seized under cover of
panchnama and after investigation, charge sheet was filed.
3. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution was not
able to prove the charges against the accused for the following
reasons:
i) The panch witnesses turned hostile to the
prosecution case.
ii) The prosecution was not able to narrate the exact
location where the ganja was seized.
iii) The prosecution did not establish that the premises
belongs to PW5 and the accused was tenant of PW5.
iv) No independent witnesses or neighbours of the said
premises were examined.
v) In the absence of prosecution proving that the
accused was in exclusive possession of the said premises,
the question of convicting the accused does not arise.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
there is no reason as to why the evidence of PW1 who is a public
servant should not be believed. In fact the seized packets were
also sent to FSL report and the same was filed during the course
of trial.
5. The learned Magistrate found that the investigating officer
stated that though he prepared panchnama, he did not obtain
signatures on it and that he did not collect any material to show
that PW5 was owner nor that accused was residing as a tenant in
the said house.
6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi
Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1,
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.
7. 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:
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:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts
is palpably wrong:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous
view of law;
iii)The trial court's judgment is likely to result in
"grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with
the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust
and unreasonable;
vi) 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.
vii) 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."
8. In the absence of the prosecution proving exclusive
possession of the premises from where the alleged ganja was
seized, the accused cannot be mulcted with criminal liability on
the basis of assumption that the premises belongs to the accused.
The police have failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the learned
Magistrate in acquitting the accused.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 29.11.2023
gvl
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1003 OF 2023
29.11.2023
gvl
