Telangana High Court
Thanneeru Ramana, Nalgonda Dist. vs The State Of A.P., And Another on 3 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1359 OF 2009
ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the defacto complainant
aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge
at Suryapet, in S.C.No.81 of 2008, vide Judgment dated 14.11.2008.,
for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant-PW1 is that she is
the victim of molestation. The incident happened on 22.12.2007
when she went to the bath room and while returning from bath
room, the accused who is the owner of her house caught hold of her
hand and dragged her into his room and outraged her modesty. She
shouted for help and escaped. Two days thereafter, when PW.1's
brothers PWs.2 and 3 arrived, she informed them and after
information given to brothers, complaint was filed with the Police.
4. The Police having examined the material witnesses filed charge
sheet for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 7 and
marked Exs.P1 to P5 on behalf of the prosecution. The accused
marked Exs.D1 to D5, during the course of cross-examination of
witnesses.
6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the evidence
of PWs.1 to 3 was highly discrepant and given different versions
regarding lodging of complaint. The version that PWs.2 and 3 were
not present in the house and they left to Gurajala to visit toy fare,
cannot be believed. In fact, it was brought on record that there were
differences between PW1 and accused, since the accused asked to
vacate the house. Further, though she stated that her bangles were
broken, nothing was found at the scene of offence. Collectively, the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that no offence was proved
against the accused.
7. Further, the Honourable 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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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:
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."
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
9. This Court is prohibited from converting Judgment of acquittal
into one of conviction under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C. As already
found there are no grounds to interfere that there was harassment
by the accused. Further, there are no reasons to remand the case to
the lower Court for trial.
10. Basing on the said grounds, Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.07.2024
tk
