Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap.,Rep By Its P.P vs Gopa Ganga Reddy And 19 Others on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.477 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the
acquittal recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad,
in Spl.S.C.No.12 of 2010 dt.23.05.2011, acquitting the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 341,
324, 435 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal code and Section 3(1)(iii),
3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xv) of the SC/STs (POA) Act.
2. PW1 is the complainant/victim. He was working as
Secretary Balapur Gram Panchayat. PW2 is the son of the sister
of PW1 and PW3 is the mother of PW1. PWs.1 to 3 are the eye-
witnesses to the incident.
3. Briefly, the case of PW1 is that on 01.01.2010, when PW2
went to the outskirts of the Landasangvi village to attend natural
calls, Accused Nos.14 and 17 caught hold of him and beat him
with hands, questioning him as to why he was moving there. On
hearing the cries of PW2, PW-3 rushed to that place and
requested A14 and A17 not to harm PW2. Again on the same day
at 9.00 a.m. PW1 boarded a bust at Landasangvi village to go to
Balapur and when he reached near Ramalayam, PW4 stopped the
bus and told PW1 that PW5 was calling him to his house. Both
PW1 and PW4 went to the house of PW5. As PW5 was not
present, both went to the house of Accused No.1 where A2 to A20
were present. All of them questioned PW1 as to why PW2 was
moving around that place and said that he was doing sorcery. All
the accused abused PWs.1 to 3 in filthy language. They also beat
PWs.1 to 3 with sticks and hands and caused injuries to PWs.1
and 2. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 8 cut the waist thread of PW1 with
knife and removed his clothes and beat PW1 indiscriminately. All
the accused alleged that PW1 was a sorcerer. Then all the
accused taken PWs.1 to 3 to the house of PW1 and searched for
sorcery books which were not found. The books that were found
were burnt. PWs.1 to 3 were taken out of the house forcibly and
made them to drink water mixed with human excreta. The
clothes of PW3 were removed and insulted in front of the
villagers. All the accused threatened PWs.1 to 3.
4. The next day, PWs.1 and 2 went to the Police Station and
lodged complaint with PW15. Crime was registered for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 435 r/w.149 of the
Indian Penal Code and investigation started. Independent
Panchas were taken to the scene of offence and panchanama was
conducted. There was seizure of Ash, near the resident of PWs.1
to 3. Accused Nos.1 to 18 were arrested and sent to judicial
custody.
5. The case was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate
and committed to the Sessions Court. Charges were framed for
the said offences. The learned Special Judge having examined 16
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and marking Exs.P1 to
P38 found that the accused were not guilty of the offence alleged
against them. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge
are that;
a) The manner in which the incident had taken place, is
contradictory in between PWs.1, 2 and 3.
b) Though it was said that all the 20 accused had
indiscriminately beaten PWs.1 to 3, there were only one
grazed abrasion on the right shoulder of PW2 and one
contusion on the left back of PW1. The said injuries run
contrary to the oral evidence of indiscriminate beating.
c) PW3 was in fact without any injuries which indicates that
PW3 was not even present at the scene or the evidence that
all the accused had beaten PW3 indiscriminately 4 or 5
times is false.
d) All the independent witnesses PWs.4 to 8 have turned
hostile to the prosecution case.
e) PWs.4 to 8, 10 and 12, though belong to same community
of PWs.1 to 3, however, they did not speak anything against
the accused.
6. The learned Special Judge had extracted the entire version
of the evidence which was a total omission in the evidence of
witnesses PWs.1 to 3. There was any amount of improvement in
the statement of PWs.1 to 3. The entire version of PW1 of the
defacto complainant regarding the allegation of assaulting him on
the ground of practicing sorcery, regarding boarding the bus etc.,
what all was stated in the chief-examination was a total
omission.
7. On account of such discrepancies in the evidence, hostility
of independent witnesses and there being no supporting evidence
of indiscriminate beating in the form of injuries, the learned
Sessions Judge found that benefit of doubt can be extended to
the accused.
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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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:
"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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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. The findings of the learned Special Judge are on the basis
of evidence recorded. Reasoning is given by the learned Sessions
Judge regarding recording acquittal.
11. In the said circumstances, I do not find any compelling
reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Special
Judge.
12. Accordingly, the State appeal fails and dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 23.04.2024
tk
