The State Of Telangana vs Kethavath , Lambadi Ramesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2775 Tel

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.336 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

P/Sessions Case No.15 of 2017, dated 01.04.2021 passed by the

Fast Track Special Judge for trial of Cases under POCSO Act-cum-

II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, which case

was prosecuted by the State for the offence under Sections 363 &

342 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act of 2012').

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.3 is the victim girl.

P.W.1 is the mother who lodged complaint stating that her

daughter was missing from the evening hours of 12.05.2016. Later

she came to know that the respondent/accused kidnapped her and

committed rape on her.

3. The victim girl/P.W.3 deposed that on 12.05.2016, the

accused went to her house and took her in an auto to his sister's

house and introduced to sister and parents. Thereafter, he

committed rape on her.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, having recorded evidence of P.Ws.1

to 10 and marking Exs.P1 to P10 found that no offence was made

out for the following grounds;

i) Age of the victim girl was not stated by the mother or the

victim girl herself for the Court to infer that she was less than 18

years to attract an offence under the Act of 2012;

ii) P.W.3/victim girl admitted that she and the

respondent/accused were in love and they moved in the area

together.

5. On the said grounds, the learned Sessions Judge found that

there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse. Nothing was sent

to the FSL and the Doctor/P.W.7, who examined the victim girl

stated that there was nothing to suggest that rape has occurred.

6. In the absence of proof of age, question of prosecuting the

respondent/accused for the offence under the provisions of the Act

of 2012 does not arise. Further, even in the evidence of

P.W.3/victim girl, except making bald allegations that rape was

committed, nothing is stated in the chief examination nor there is

any corroboration from the Doctor.

7. 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.

8. 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:

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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."

9. Learned Public Prosecutor has failed to argue that there

any substantial issues are involved which required

examination or reversing the judgment. On the basis of

evidence on record, I do not find an infirmity with the

reasonable conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:27.09.2023

kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.336 OF 2021

Dt. 27.09.2023

kvs