The State Of Telangana vs Surisetti Shiva Rama Krishna And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2549 Tel

              HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42 of 2021


JUDGMENT:

1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated

15.11.2019 passed in S.C.No.343 of 2015 by the V Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar for the

offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of A1

and the A2 is the mother of the A1. On 24.03.2011, the marriage

between the A1 and the deceased was performed and it was a love

marriage. During their matrimonial life, they were blessed with one son.

After some time of marital life, the A1 and A2 harassed the deceased to

get Rs.10.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. Panchayat was also held on

31.08.2014 and after panchayath, the deceased again joined A1 but the

accused continued their harassment. On 09.09.2014, the deceased

committed suicide by setting fire to herself by pouring kerosene as she

was vexed with the attitude of the accused.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P10 were marked.

4. Learned Sessions Judge found that no case was made out against

the accused and recorded acquittal on the following grounds:

i) that P.W.9 did not obtain any certificate from the Duty

Doctor about the mental condition of the deceased before recording the

statement. After recording the statement, P.W.9 took the certificate of

Doctor that patient was in conscious and coherent. P.W.9 admits that

there is no endorsement on Ex.P4 from the Duty Doctor to ascertain that

the patient was coherent and fit state of mind before recording

statement. There is no certification by the Duty Doctor that patient is

mentally fit in state to record the statement. In such circumstances, the

evidence adduced by P.W.9 could not help the prosecution case.

ii) The evidence adduced by the investigating officer, P.W.11 would

disclose that the material witnesses do not disclose any specific

instances of harassment nor the circumstances, ultimately which lead to

the death of the deceased to prove the essential ingredients Under

Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, considering the overall evidence, it is to

be held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the

accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 304-B of IPC beyond reasonable

doubt.

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:

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:

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";

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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."

7. Learned Sessions Judge found that the statements made by the

witnesses were vague and without any specific instances. Further, the

dying declaration which was recorded did not have the endorsement of

the Duty Doctor that the deceased was in fit state of mind. The injuries

received were 90%. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any

reason to reverse the judgment of acquittal, since the findings of the

learned Sessions Judge are probable and reasonable.

Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications,

if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.09.2023.

kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2021

Date: 20.09.2023

kvs