Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs M.A.Haseeb Kha And Another on 29 September, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 349 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the
acquittal recorded by the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad, in Sessions Case No.520 of 2016, dated
27.02.2021, acquitting the respondents/A1 & A2 for the offences
under Sections 307, 451, 506, 447, 448 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The case of the defacto complainant/PW1 is that she was
married to Accused No.1 and there were several disputes amongst
spouses. A complaint was also filed by PW against A1 in October,
2011 in Humayun Nagar Police Station. During the relevant period,
she was staying in the premises wherein there are two flats bearing
Nos.103 and 104 in Harmony Aziz Residency, situated at Masab
Tank. The alleged incident happened on 29.11.2011 at 10.00 p.m.
At the time of incident parents of defacto complainant, her children
were present. According to the evidence of PW1, on 29.11.2011 the
accused Nos.1 and 2 armed with a Revolver went into the flat
No.103 and A1 pointed the Revolver at PW1/defacto complainant
and asked her to vacate the premises, failing which he would kill
her. Again in the year 2012 in the month of June, in the afternoon
hours, A1 and A2 along with her sister-in-laws and 25 gundas
came. broke open the doors and beat PW1 and her children.
Though, she went to the Humayun Nagar Police Station to lodge a
complaint, the Police had not taken any complaint and accordingly
on the advise of her friends she approached an Advocate and filed a
private complaint.
3. Learned Sessions Judge having examined PW1 to PW11 and
marking Exs.P1 to P5 found that no offence was made out against
the accused. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are;
i) There are disputes amongst spouses.
ii) Though the alleged incident happened on 29.11.2011, the
complaint was lodged on 18.03.2013 with a delay of nearly 1½
years.
iii) There are 5 civil cases against A2 filed by PW1, and after she
vacated the flats 103 and 104, she filed the present complaint.
iv) The present complaint is filed by PW1 after she failed in all five
civil cases. In the said civil cases she has taken a plea of oral
gift by Accused No.2.
v) There is inconsistency amongst the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and
in view of the said contradictions there is a suspicion as to
whether such incident happened or not.
vi) There is no proof that PW1 had approached the Police at any
point of time prior to lodging of complaint Ex.P1.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would
submit that PWs.1 to 4 consistently stated regarding the alleged
threatening by Accused No.1 by holding a Revolver in their evidence.
There is no necessity for the wife and children to speak against
husband/father and father-in-law/grand-father. Since the trial
Court has committed an error in assessing the evidence of PWs.1 to
4 in the right perspective, the order of acquittal has to be reversed
and the accused have to be convicted.
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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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";
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. It is not in dispute that PW1 had filed a complaint against her
husband which was registered and being tried for the offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, 5 civil suits were
filed by PW1which are gone against her. The inordinate delay of
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
nearly 1½ years in lodging the complaint by defacto
complainant/PW1 is not explained. The defacto complainant/PW1
having lodged a complaint against her husband for the offence
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, what prevented her
in lodging a complaint against her husband immediately after the
incident, if at all the alleged incident has happened on 29.11.2011
and also in June, 2012, is not known.
8. In the background of the differences between the spouses and
also the civil suits pending which are filed by PW1/defacto
complainant against her husband, false implication cannot be ruled
out. The reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is cogent and
on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.
9. In the said circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or
glaring inconsistency to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment
of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.: 29.09.2023
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 349 OF 2021
Dt. 29.09.2023
tk
