Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., vs Erukala Gangaiah And 2 Others, on 31 October, 2023

Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                                  AND
            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.485 OF 2013

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

        The State filed the present Criminal Appeal challenging the

judgment dated 07.11.2008 passed by learned VI Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy, in Sessions Case

No.320 of 2004 acquitting accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences

punishable under Sections - 302 and 324 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

        2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the

aforesaid S.C. No.320 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the

parties are hereinafter referred as they arraigned in S.C. No.320 of

2004.

3. The case of the prosecution is as under:

i) PW.3 - Erukala Chinna Pochaiah is the younger brother's son

of the deceased - Kavadi @ Erukala Pedda Thammaiah. The accused

are the residents of Almajipoor Village and so also the deceased.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

ii) The accused are having inimical terms with PW.3 and the

deceased regarding water tap.

iii) On 29.10.2003, the Water Users Association Elections were

held where the deceased and PW.3 supported one Mr. Pasham Ram

Reddy of the same village who was defeated in the said elections.

Therefore, the deceased while leaving the election counting place i.e.,

Junior College, Yellareddy abused the accused persons stating that on

account of not casting of votes by the accused family, the said Pasham

Ram Reddy was defeated. Then, the accused became angry and they

tried to attack the deceased. But, due to the intervention of the mob,

who were present there, the issue was subsided.

iv) On 30.10.2003 at about 7.00 A.M., while PW.2 was

drawing water from the water tap at the aforesaid Village, accused

No.1 went there and abused her in filthy language and obstructed her

from drawing water and thrown her water pot away. Due to which,

heated arguments between accused No.1 and PW.2. On seeing the

situation, the deceased, who is the brother-in-law of PW.2, rushed

there and rescued her from accused No.1, but some galata took place

between them. On seeing the galata, accused Nos.2 and 3, who are

the brothers of accused No.1 came there armed with sticks, while

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

accused No.1 brought a rice pounder from the house and accused

Nos.1 to 3 beat the deceased with rice pounder and sticks and caused

head injury.

v) On seeing the said situation, PWs.1 and 3 came to rescue the

deceased, but accused Nos.2 and 3 beat them and caused injuries. The

said incident was witnessed by PWs.2, 4, 5 & LWs.4, 6, 7 and 9, the

injured - PWs.1 and 3 and also the deceased. The injured and the

deceased were shifted to Government Hospital, Yellareddy

immediately on 30.10.2003, whereas PW.10 - Dr. Yadagiri treated

PWs.1 and 3. The deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, where he died on 31.10.2003 at about 5.30 a.m. while

undergoing treatment. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the

aforesaid offences.

vi) On receipt of the complaint lodged by PW.3 on 30.10.2003

at 8.00 A.M., the Police of Yellareddy registered a case in Crime

No.85 of 2003 under Section - 324 IPC and invested into the matter.

vii) During the course of investigation, on receipt of

information about the death of the deceased, the police altered the

section of law from 324 IPC to Sections - 302 and 324 IPC.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

4. On completion of investigation, the police laid a charge

sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections -

302 and 324 read with 34 IPC and, thereafter, the case was committed

to the Court of Sessions which was taken on file vide S.C. No.320 of

2004 for the said offence.

5. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections - 302 and

324 read with 34 IPC against the accused. The accused denied the

charge and pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial. Thus, the accused

was put on trial.

6. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 13

witnesses viz., PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 documents and

MOs.1 and 2 were exhibited. No oral evidence was let in on behalf of

the accused, however, Exs.D1 to D10 were marked.

7. After completion of trial and on appreciation of evidence,

both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused not

guilty of the aforesaid charges framed against them and accordingly

acquitted them of the aforesaid charges.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State preferred

the present appeal.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

9. Heard Mr.T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Appellant - State and Mr.

Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for respondents - accused Nos.1 to 3.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that

the learned Sessions Judge erred considering the evidence of PWs.1 to

5 properly, who clearly deposed about the accused beating the

deceased and out of the injuries caused to the deceased by the accused

only the deceased died while undergoing treatment. There is ample

evidence to show the involvement of accused in commission of the

aforesaid offences. Minor contradictions and inconsistencies would

not tilt the case of prosecution. Without considering the said aspects,

the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and, therefore, the

judgment is liable to be set aside by convicting the accused.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents -

accused Nos.1 to 3 would submit that there is no sufficient evidence to

connect the accused with the alleged offences. There are discrepancies

and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more

particularly PWs.1 to 5. The learned Sessions Judge after considering

the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused

of the aforesaid offences. There is no error in it.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

12. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the only issue

that falls for consideration by this Court is:

Whether the findings of the trial Court acquitting the accused for the offences under Sections - 302 and 324 read with 34 are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

13. Now, it is apt to refer to the evidence of witnesses so as to

come to a conclusion whether the trial Court was right in acquitting

the accused or not?

14. According to the prosecution, LWs.4 to 9 were eye-

witnesses out of them, LW.5 and LW.8 were examined as PWs.4 and

5, whereas, LW.1 is the complainant who was examined as PW.3.

LWs.1 and 2 examined as PWs.3 and 1 respectively were injured in

the quarrel took place among them, the deceased and the accused.

The prosecution did not examine the remaining eye-witnesses i.e.,

LWs.4, 6, 7 and 9. So, now we have to examine the evidence of

PWs.4 and 5, who were eye-witnesses to the incident with regard to

the galata took place among the accused persons, the deceased and

PWs.1 to 3 and out of such galata, the deceased received the injuries

which led to the death of the deceased.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

15. PW.4 is the resident of same village of accused and the

deceased. PW.1 is his son, while PWs.2 and 3 are their relatives and

the deceased was his elder brother. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also the

sons of his junior paternal uncle. On 30.10.2003 at about 7.00 A.M.,

PW.2 went to the tap to collect the water and then accused No.1

picked up quarrel and removed her water pot from the tap. Then, the

deceased questioned accused No.1 for removal of water pot on which

accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the deceased and beat him with a

rice pounder on his head. When PW.1 and 3 intervened, accused

Nos.2 and 3 beat them with sticks and at that time; he was reaching

the place of incident. The deceased fell down on receiving the pestle

blow on head. PWs.1 and 3 have also received injuries on their heads.

About 50 to 60 persons were present and had witnessed the incident.

On seeking the villagers, accused Nos.1 to 3 fled away from the place

of offence. PW.5, PW.6 and LWs.12 and 14 were also present and

witnessed the offence. The deceased was taken to hospital at

Yellareddy on a tractor and from there he was taken to Gandhi

Hospital by himself, the wife of the deceased, his son and daughter.

On the next day, the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

PW.5 also deposed on the very same lines.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

16. Referring to the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 which goes to

show that there was political rivalry between the families of PWs.1 to

3 and the families of accused persons and also referring to the

evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the trial Court observed that they consistently

stated that after the incident, the deceased was taken to Government

Hospital, Yellareddy and from there to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. If really, the deceased was beaten with a pestle on his

head as stated by PWs.1 to 3, definitely he must have received

bleeding injury. PW.1 in his cross-examination stated that when the

deceased was beaten, there was bleeding injury and so his clothes

became blood stained and further bleeding fell on ground. The

Investigating Officer did not seize either the blood stained clothes of

the deceased or any blood stained earth from the place of the alleged

offence. Apart from that, PW.11 - Investigating Officer in his

evidence did not at all deposed that on 30.10.2003 at 8.00 a.m., PWs.1

to 3 brought the deceased to the police station or that he sent the

deceased to Government Hospital for medical treatment, whereas

PW.10 - the doctor deposed that on 30.10.2003 he referred the

deceased to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for specialized treatment.

The trial Court also observed that it is common knowledge that a

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

patient is referred to a big hospital if his/her condition is serious

because of grave injuries sustained by him/her. The evidence of

PW.10 does not at all show that he found any injuries on the body of

the deceased so as to say that it was necessary to send him to a big

hospital. If really, PW.10 examined the deceased who referred him to

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, he could have issued medical

certificate just as he issued Exs.P7 and P8 wound certificates to PWs.1

and 3 after finding injuries on them. In Ex.P16 - Photostat copy of

case sheet, it is simply mentioned that the deceased was referred to

Gandhi Hospital and it does not show the signature of PW.10. No

reasons were mentioned as to why it became necessary to refer the

deceased to Gandhi Hospital. Thus, it is doubtful that the deceased

was taken to Govt. Hospital and PW.10 examined the deceased and

referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

17. The trial Court also referred in its judgment that Ex.P17 -

PME report shows that anti-mortem injury found on the dead body of

the deceased was abrasion over the vertex measuring 6 x 3 cm with

underlying fracture of the vault. If a blow is given with a pestle on

head, it is improbable that a mere abrasion would be caused. Thus, it

also creates a suspicion in the case of the prosecution.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

18. According to the prosecution, PWs.1 and 1 and 3 were

received injuries in the quarrel picked up among them and the accused

persons. PW.10 deposed that on 30.10.2003 at 8.30 P.M. on

requisition from the Police of Yellareddy, he examined Pw.3 and

found the injuries i) A lacerated injury over the forehead measuring 2

x ¼"; ii) A contusion over the right forearm measuring 5 x 2" and that

he issued Ex.P7 injury certificate. He further deposed that he also

examined PW.1 and found the injuries as i) A lacerated injury over the

vertex of the head measuring 2 x 1/4" and ii) A contusion over the

lateral accept of the right wrist measuring 2 x 1" and he issued Ex.P8

injury certificate. He further deposed that the injuries are three hours

old.

19. During cross-examination, PW.10 admitted that he did not

mention the age of the injuries sustained by PW.3. According to the

prosecution, PWs.1 and 3 received injuries at the same time. So, the

age of the injuries of PW.3 also must be three hours old. If that

opinion of the doctor is taken into account since he examined the

injured witnesses at 8.30 p.m., in all probability, the alleged incident

must have taken place at 5.30 p.m. on that day. Thus, the opinion

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

expressed by PW.10 would also improbabilize the version of PWs.1 to

3 about the time at which the alleged incident took place.

20. Referring to the contents of Ex.P9 - FIR, the complaint was

lodged at 8.00 a.m. on 30.10.2003, whereas PW.1 in his cross-

examination deposed that the time taken for the incident was one hour

and that the police station in Yellareddy is at a distance of 12 kms.

from his village Almajipoor and that it took one hour for taking the

deceased on tractor from the village to Yellareddy, the trial Court

observed that in view of the said version, PWs.1 to 3 along with the

deceased must reached the police station only by 9.00 a.m. and not

earlier to that.

21. PW.11 - Investigating Officer deposed that on 30.10.2003

on the complaint given by accused No.2, he registered a case in Crime

No.86 of 2003 against PWs.1, 3 and the deceased at 8.30 a.m. on that

day and that he referred both accused Nos.1 and 3 to Government

Hospital for medical treatment without arresting them. He also admits

that when he conducted panchanama in respect of the above crime

vide Ex.D4, accused No.2 was present. There is no explanation from

PW.11 as to why he did not arrest accused Nos.1 and 2 even though a

case had already been registered against them at 8.00 A.M. on the

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

complaint given by PW.3. The absence of any explanation creates a

doubt whether FIR under Ex.P9 was registered by then or not. That is

why, it was rightly suggested to him that he did not register the FIR

till 2.00 p.m. on that day and it was thereafter only he registered the

case by ante timing. In addition to it, there is delay of more than 24

hours in sending FIR to the Magistrate concerned. PW.11 in his

cross-examination admits that the endorsement on Ex.P9 FIR shows

that it was received by the Magistrate at 11.00 A.M. on 31.10.2003

and the trial Court relied on the decision Kalu v. State of U.P. 1,

wherein the Apex Court held that FIR in a criminal case, more

particularly in murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence

and any delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment which

is a creature of an afterthought and that if there is delay in sending FIR

to the local Magistrate, inference is that FIR was not lodged at the

time it is stated to have been registered unless there is satisfactory

explanation for the delay.

22. That apart, in Ex.D2 - charge sheet, PWs.1, 3 and the

deceased allegedly beat the accused persons causing injuries to them

at 8.30 A.M. on the same day. So, time gap between the incident of

. 1995 Crl.L.J. 457 (SC)

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

the present case and the incident of the counter case by the accused

persons is only half an hour. Significantly, Ex.P11 - sketch in this

case and Ex.D5 sketch in the counter case would show that the place

of offence is one and the same. Exs.D6 to D8 would certificates of

accused persons show that there were two simple injuries on accused

No.1, four simple injuries on accused No.2 and one simple injury on

accused No.3.

23. It is also referred by the trial Court that according to

PW.11, on 30.10.2003 he visited the place of offence and conducted

panchanama of scene under Ex.P10 and prepared rough sketch of it

under Ex.P11 in the presence of PWs.6 and 7. Whereas, PW.6

deposed that on 30.10.2003 at 4.00 p.m. when himself and Pullela

Sailoo were standing in front of the house of Mr. Ram Reddy, Sub-

Inspector came and prepared panchanama of the scene and obtained

their signatures by putting them in fear. Whereas, PW.7 deposed that

when both himself and PW.6 were standing in front of the house of

the said Ram Reddy, police called them to Erukalagudem and they

were taken to a public tap and the police conducted panchanama of

the scene and drew rough sketch. So, the evidence of PW.6 is quite

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

inconsistent with the evidence of PW.7 as PW.6 never stated that the

panchanama was conducted at the public tap in Erukalagudem.

24. Another inconsistency pointed out by the trial Court is that

on Ex.P10 panchanama and Ex.P11 sketch, crime number is

mentioned as 85 of 2003 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections - 302 and 324 IPC. According to PW.11, on 31.10.2003 at

7.30 A.M., PW.3 came to the police station and gave Ex.P12

complaint informing about the death of the deceased and on the basis

of the same, he altered the section of law to 302 and 324 IPC and

issued Ex.P13 alteration memo. By virtue of the same, it is clear that

the case under Sections - 302 and 324 IPC was registered by issuing

alteration memo only on 31.10.2003. If really, the panchanama was

conducted and rough sketch was drawn on 30.10.2003, the offence

under Section - 302 IPC could not have been mentioned while

mentioning the crime number on the panchanama and the sketch.

25. PW.11 in his cross-examination admitted that by mistake it

was so mentioned, which is palpably false. The fact that the crime

number on the panchanama and the sketch is mentioned as 302 and

324 IPC would inferentially show that it was only on 31.10.2003 they

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

were prepared, and consequently, it has to be concluded that on

30.10.2003, PW.11 did not at all visit the scene of offence and did not

prepare the panchanama and the sketch in the presence of witnesses.

Therefore, the evidence of PWs.6, 7 and 11 that on 30.10.2003 at 4.30

p.m. the panchanama was conducted for the scene of offence and

rough sketch was drawn as shown in Exs.P10 and P11 is false.

26. The trial Court also observed that there is no proof as to the

cause of death of the deceased. The reason assigned by it is that the

doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, was not examined.

According to the prosecution, Dr.T. Vikas Vijay, Assistant Professor

of Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad, conducted autopsy over

the dead body of the deceased, but prosecution examined PW.13, Mr.

B. Karunakar, Assistant Professor of the same College, as the said

Dr.Vikas Vijay went abroad. PW.13 did not assist Dr. Vikas Vijay in

conducting PME and he did not identify the signature of the doctor,

who issued PME report. Ex.P17-PME report, the following injuries

were found:

"Abrasion over the vertex measuring 6 x 3 cm with underlying fracture of the vault of skull with fracture line extending to occipital bone and middle cranial Fossa with Sub dural

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

Hematonma on the left Parieto-temporal region of brain measuring 15 x 8 cm."

The cause of death was on account of head injury. Ex.P16 case sheet

does not show that when the deceased was taken to Government

Hospital, Yellareddy, there was injury on his body. Contra to it,

Ex.P17 shows antemortem injury. As mentioned above, probability

would not suggest that an abrasion would be caused when a blow is

given with a pestle. In view of inconsistency between the evidence of

PWs.16 and 17 and the improbability, the examination of doctor, who

actually conducted PME was indispensable, not only to prove the

contents of the report but also to enable the accused to cross-examine

him in the light of the defence taken by them. Since the doctor was

not examined, the cause of the death mentioned in the report is not

proved.

27. Further, in the FIR, it is not mentioned that PW.4 is the

younger brother of the deceased. If really he was present when the

accused attacked the deceased, he would have intervened. That apart,

in the FIR, it is not mentioned that he witnessed the alleged incident.

Further, PWs.1 to 3 did not at all say that PW.4 was present at the

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

time of alleged incident. Thus, it is very doubtful that he was present

at the time of alleged occurrence.

28. PW.5 denied having stated before the police as in Ex.D1

that Samaiah and Chinna Muthaiah beat Pedda Muthaiah with sticks

and Pedda Muthaiah fell down on receiving injury. The version

before the police is quite contra to his statement before the Court.

Therefore, Ex.D1 shows serious contradiction in his evidence

affecting the credibility of his version before the Court. Moreover, in

cross-examination, he categorically says that Ram Reddy is his father-

in-law. The said Ram Reddy is one of the contestants in Water Users

Association elections whom PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased supported.

29. Referring to the above said inconsistencies and

contradictions in the evidence of prosecution evidence, both oral and

documentary, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the

testimonies of PWs.1 and 3, who are injured witnesses and the

evidence of PW.2 - eye witness cannot safely be relied upon, because

FIR is doubtful and further the medical evidence on record is not

consistent and cogent. Further, the testimonies of PWs.4 and 5 are

found to be not credible. Thus, on a careful scrutiny of testimony of

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

PWs.1 to 5, the trial Court found that their version is not natural but

artificial and it does not inspire confidence to accept the same and

thereby disbelieved their evidence.

30. As far as recovery of material objects is concerned, the trial

Court observed that in pursuance of the confession made by accused

No.1, PW.12 - Investigating Officer recovered MO.1 - pestle under

cover of Ex.P14 - portion of confession-cum- recovery panchanama

and also recovered MO.2 - stick in pursuance of confession made by

accused No.2 under cover of Ex.P15 portion of his confession - cum-

recovery panchanama. PW.9 deposed that the police called him to the

house of Erukala People, where there is a public tap and the police

called accused persons to that place. At the instance of police, he

enquired with accused persons and they confessed about the offence

and that accused No.1 brought MO.1 rice pounder from his house and

the same was seized by the police. Thereafter, the police arrested the

accused and took them away.

31. As per Section - 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, any

informative statement given by the accused while in custody of the

police showing the discovery of a fact is admissible in evidence.

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

Since PW.12 is a police officer, his testimony cannot be safely relied

upon, unless it is corroborated by independent witness. Though

prosecution examined PW.9, his evidence does not show

corroboration to the testimony of PW.12 with regard to recovery of

MOs.1 and 2. Further, PW.9 did not speak about recovery of MO.2

stick as stated by PW.12. Thus, the prosecution also failed to prove

the alleged confession leading to recovery of MOs.1 and 2.

32. The trial Court after analyzing the entire evidence on record

both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the prosecution

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and

accordingly acquitted them for the aforesaid offences.

33. In Khema alias Khem Chandra Etc. v. State of Uttar

Pradesh 2 relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents -

accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering that the trial court as

and the High Court have failed to take into consideration the vital

discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses and that though independent witnesses were available, the

prosecution has failed to examine them, held that the appellants are

entitled for benefit of doubt.

. AIR 2022 SC 3765

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

34. In Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 3 relied upon by

learned counsel for the accused, the Apex Court held that conduct of

eye witness either at the time of incident or immediately thereafter is

not natural and does not inspire confidence which makes his presence

on the spot extremely doubtful and that prosecution miserably failed

to prove the alleged offences beyond doubt by adducing cogent and

trustworthy evidence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

35. In Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala 4, the Apex Court held

as under:

"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, 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 analyzed. 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. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused

. AIR 2020 SC 4894

. 2022 SCC Online SC 495

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."

36. The Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid principle in Ravi

Sharma v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) 5.

37. In Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab 6, the Apex Court

held as under:

" In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasised the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on "compelling and substantial reasons" and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present an appeal court should not interfere with an order of acquittal. (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. State [1952 SCR 194]; Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) 2 SCC 709 : 1953 SCR 418]; Puran v. State of Punjab [(1952) 2 SCC 454 : AIR (1953) SC 459] ). The use of the words "compelling reasons"

embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had meant by the words "compelling reasons". In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on "compelling reasons" but nonetheless adhered

. (2022) 8 SCC 536

. AIR 1962 SC 439

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable. (Vide Chinta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1959); Ashrafkha Haibatkha Pathan v. State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1960).

9. It is clear that in emphasising in many cases the necessity of "compelling reasons" to justify an interference with an order of acquittal the court did not in any way try to curtail the power bestowed on appellate courts under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when hearing appeals against acquittal; but conscious of the intense dislike in our jurisprudence of the conviction of innocent persons and of the fact that in many systems of jurisprudence the law does not provide at all for any appeal against an order of acquittal the court was anxious to impress on the appellant courts the importance of bestowing special care in the sifting of evidence in appeal against acquittals. As has already been pointed out less emphasis is being given in the more recent pronouncements of

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

this Court on "compelling reasons". But, on close analysis, it is clear that the principles laid down by the Court in this matter have remained the same. What may be called the golden thread running through all these decisions is the Rule that in deciding appeals against acquittal the court of appeal must examine the evidence with particular care, must examine also the reasons on which the order of acquittal was based and should interfere with the order only when satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting Judge is clearly unreasonable. Once the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the lower court is clearly an unreasonable one that itself is a "compelling reason" for interference. For, it is a court's duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less than it is its duty to acquit the accused when such guilt is not so established."

38. In Champaben Govindbhai v. Popatbhai Manilal 7, the

Apex Court held as under:

"12. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the appellate court does not reverse the finding of acquittal if the court while granting acquittal has taken a reasonable or a possible view on the evidence and materials on record. Law is

. (2009) 13 SCC 662

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

equally well settled that if the view taken by the court granting acquittal is perverse or shocks the conscience of the higher court, the finding of acquittal can be reversed.

13. In the instant case, the High Court as the first appellate court has a duty to consider in detail the material on record and also should appreciate the evidence very carefully before affirming the order of acquittal given by the trial court.

14. The counsel for the respondents referred to the decision of this Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] to put forward the argument that an appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a 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 been acquitted, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

5. In this connection we may refer to the principles summarised in para 42 at SCC p. 432 of the judgment in Chandrappa case and they are extracted:

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

"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

KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.485 of 2013

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."

Also, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court (para 44)."

39. In the light of the above said legal position, coming to the

facts of the case on hand, as discussed above, on analyzing the entire

evidence, the trial Court held that though there was political rivalry

between the families of the deceased and the accused persons, on the

date when the alleged incident occurred, there is absolutely no

evidence that the respondents - accused persons were having pre-

meeting of mind, premeditation and pre-plan for committing murder

of the deceased and in furtherance of the common intention the

accused persons caused injuries with the help of MOs.1 and 2. Thus,

ingredients of Sections - 302 and 324 IPC are not made out from the

evidence brought on record. The said findings of the trial Court are on

consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary. The