The State Of Telangana vs Allepu Sambaiah
2023 Latest Caselaw 2692 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.240 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

1. The State is aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal vide

judgment in SC No.32 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020 passed by the

Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal.

2. A1 and A2 were tried for the offence under Section 304-II IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was engaged by

the accused for demolishing a building which was in dilapidated

condition. Though the deceased wanted to demolish the building

from the top, the accused had asked the deceased to demolish from

the bottom. When the deceased was working in the ground floor,

portion of the wall collapsed resulting in grievous injuries and

consequent death.

3. Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to

establish that the demolished house was belonging to A2 and that

A1 was the person who engaged the services of the deceased to

demolish the house. The particulars of the ownership of the

dilapidated house were also not filed by the prosecution. The

Investigating Officer admitted that no proof was filed to connect A2

with the said building.

4. Learned Sessions Judge further found that though P.Ws.1, 2

and 5 have stated that A1 had taken the deceased and P.W.5 to

work in the dilapidated house, the prosecution case cannot be

believed since the very basis for calling the deceased to demolish

was that the house belonging to A2, which was not proved.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State

would submit that the evidence of P.W.1, who is the son of the

deceased and P.W.5, who is the other labourer who went along with

the deceased is enough to infer that the accused are responsible for

the death of the deceased and they are liable to be convicted under

Section 304-II of IPC.

6. To attract an offence under Section 304-II IPC, a person

should have committed culpable homicide not amounting to

murder. If the act committed by an accused results in the death

and such act is done without any intention having knowledge that

such bodily injury is likely to cause death would amount to an

offence under Section 304 IPC.

7. The deceased and another was engaged to demolish a house.

It is not the case that the accused were at the place when the

incident has taken place. Even according to the witnesses, the

accused have not done any act having knowledge that such act

would cause death of the deceased.

8. 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.

9. 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:

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

"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";

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."

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous

applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.09.2023 kvs

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.240 OF 2021

Date: 25.09.2023

kvs