Pallapu Padma, Nalgonda Dt., vs Pallepu Yadagiri, Karimnagar And 2 ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3153 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3153 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2024

Telangana High Court

Pallapu Padma, Nalgonda Dt., vs Pallepu Yadagiri, Karimnagar And 2 ... on 8 August, 2024

                                 1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                     AND
 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

          CRIMINAL APPEAL No.466 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated

03.02.2015 in S.C.No.59 of 2013, on the file of V Additional

District Judge, at Bhongir.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/de-facto

complainant and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The appellant is the de-facto complainant and the

wife of the deceased. She lodged a complaint on

26.05.2012 stating that her husband was murdered. In

the compliant, she stated that her husband called her on

previous day and informed that he was travelling with A-1

and A-2 of whom A-1 is the tractor owner. Thereafter,

dead body of the deceased was found by P.W.2 on

26.05.2012.

4. Having investigated the case, the Police filed charge

sheet alleging that on 25.05.2012, both A-1 and A-2

committed murder of the deceased by beating him with

stones and stabbing him with knife due to disputes

regarding money taken by the deceased for the purchase of

tractor.

5. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence

under Section 302 r/w 201 of IPC against both the

accused. Having examined P.Ws.1 to 14 witnesses,

Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

Learned Sessions Judge found that apart from the evidence

of P.W.1 that the deceased called her on phone and

informed her that he is travelling along with A-1 and A-2,

there is absolutely no other evidence remotely to suggest

that A-1 and A-2 were in fact were last seen with the

deceased who had committed murder.

6. Since the case is of circumstantial evidence, the trial

Court found that none of the circumstances as projected

by the prosecution has formed a complete chain to infer

guilt of the accused.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1, laid principles as to the

acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the basis to

record conviction, which read as under:-

"1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;

2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

submit that P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased had in

fact stated that she had received a phone call from her

husband and the very next day his dead body was found,

(1984) 4 SCC 116

that in itself would be the sufficient evidence to convict the

accused by reversing the judgment of the trial Court.

9. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another 2, 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.

10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 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

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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."

11. The only ground which is raised by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant is that the wife

received a phone call from the husband was not

investigated by the Police. Neither the phone number of

the wife nor from which number she was called was

collected by the Police during the course of investigation.

There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the

trial Court, since the findings are reasonable and need no

interference.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J

______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J