Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Kota Srinu on 2 January, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1104 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

1. The State has preferred the present appeal questioning the

judgment of acquittal dated 13.07.2023 in S.C.No.213 of 2022,

passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant

Sessions Judge, Mancherial. The offences charged against

respondent Nos.1 to 7/accused Nos.1 to 7 are under Sections 147,

148, 447, 307 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2014, PW5 went

to the Police Station and also filed a complaint stating that there

was a land dispute between the accused persons and the injured.

The said land was situated at Bavapur shivar in Sy.Nos.83, 89 to

92 and 99. High Court accorded permission as on 20.08.2014.

However, all the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 7 with a pre-plan

entered into the disputed premises and injured PW1 and PW2.

3. The prosecution produced PWs 1 to 12 in support of their

version and also Ex.P1 to P26 and MO1 were marked. Ex.P25 is

the medical certificate of PW1 and Ex.P26 is the medical certificate

of PW9, who were allegedly injured in the incident. Having

considered the evidence of the witnesses, the learned Sessions

Judge found lacunas in the prosecution case, which are as below:

i. PW1/complainant admitted that he did not disclose the specific overtacts of A1 to A7. but coming to his cross examination, PW1 categorically explained the specific overtacts and moreover, it is his contention that on the date of incident, he along with PW, PW9 and PW6 went to the scene of offence. In such a case, failed to disclose the specific overtacts whispers a reasonable doubt to disbelieve his version.

ii. PW1 admitted in his cross examination that they are in possession over trespassed land but no scrap of record is placed that as on the date of incident, they were wither lawful owners or possessors over the same.

iii. PW9 admitted that Sub collector gave finding that family members of A1 are the LRs of original pattedars of Bheemaiah. PW9 also admitted that Sub Collector, Asifabad gave finding that trespassed land belongs to A1, aggrieved by said orders they preferred writ before the Hon'ble High Court and same is pending. But the said proceeding was denied by PW1 and PW2 being family members.

iv. PW9 failed to disclose that PW2 sustained injuries when he came to rescue him.

v. PW2 categorically stated that LW4/Thirupathi, Sheker, Devaji and Rajanna rescued them. But PW1 nowhere stated their presence.

vi. If PW3 to PW5 presence is believed for spur of the moment, but their statements are inconsistent pertaining to specific overtacts of A1 to A3.

vii. As per PW2, only A1 to A3 attacked but coming to PW1 and PW3, all accused persons beat PW2 and PW9. Thus, PW2 and PW9 statements are inconsistent with eye witnesses.

viii. PW6 who was along with PW1, PW3 and PW9 at the time of incident admitted that prior to the incident revenue and police officials advised them not to cultivate trespassed land due to land disputes.

ix. PW7 seizure panch testimony is inconsistent with I.O. testimony coupled with case property.

x. I.O. admitted in his cross examination that neither any of the witnesses categorically admitted that the trespassed land belongs to PW1 nor he enquired revenue records in order to ascertain the ownership of trespassed land as on the date of incident.

xi. The learned defence counsel has successfully elicited that I.O. as on the date of filing of charge sheet did not had any acquiesce whether PW1 are lawful possessors or owners of trespassed property.

4. On the basis of the said discrepancies/lacunas of the

prosecution case, the learned Sessions Judge recorded acquittal.

5. The State aggrieved by the said acquittal has preferred the

present appeal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing

the State would submit that it is not in dispute that all the

respondents/accused were part of the group which attacked PWs

1 and 9. With the aid of Section 149 of IPC, any member of the

unlawful assembly are liable to be convicted. It is not necessary

that specific overt acts should be attributed to the accused.

6. From the evidence stated by the witnesses, the witnesses

have improved their evidence in the Court. In fact, PW1 had

admitted that he never disclosed any overt acts insofar as, the

respondents/accused are concerned. However, he tried to narrate

and attribute overt acts to each of the accused which is contrary

to the earliest version. The other witnesses who are examined

stated regarding the incident, however contradicted the overt acts

attributed by PW1 to the accused. The evidence of other witnesses

also who were PWs 3 to 5 runs contrary to the evidence of PW1

vis-a-vis attributed to the accused.

7. The incident occurred, however, except naming the accused,

nothing specific was attributed to any of the accused at the

earliest point of time. Even in the chief examination, PW1 failed

to state any overt acts. However, in the course of cross

examination, PW1 tried to implicate each of the respondent/

accused by attributing overt acts to each of them. The very

narration made by PW1 in the Court, which overt acts do not find

place in the earliest complaint and also Section 161 Cr.P.C

statement throws any amount of doubt regarding correctness of

the version given by PW1 in the Court.

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

Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1,

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:

"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.

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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. In the present facts, the finding of the learned Sessions

Judge is based on record and reasonable conclusions are drawn.

Only for the reason of there being injured, it cannot be said that

the respondents/accused are responsible. In the background of

discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses who are alleged to be

eye witnesses, the Sessions Court had no other option but to

acquit the accused giving benefit of doubt. Unless there are

compelling reasons as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

judgments cited above, a judgment of acquittal cannot be

reversed. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

well reasoned judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Court.

Accordingly, the State fails and appeal is liable to be dismissed.