R.Venkateswara Naik, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2550 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2550 Tel
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

R.Venkateswara Naik, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., And ... on 5 July, 2024

                                  1




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
          CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1341 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:

1. The de-facto complainant is questioning the judgment

of the Court below whereby learned Special Judge acquitted

the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of

SCs/STs(POA) Act but convicted for the offence under Section

506 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-State.

3. The case of P.Ws.1 to 3 is that when they went to the

house of accused, the accused abused P.W.1 in the name of

his caste and threatened him. Learned Sessions Judge found

that taking into consideration that the incident did not

happen in public view, as stated by all the witnesses accused

cannot be connected under SC/ST(POA) Act. However,

learned Special Judge found that P.W.1 was threatened and

the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 506

of IPC.

4. 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.

5. 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."

6. The learned Special Judge found that during the course

of trial, the witnesses tried to improve their case by stating

that the incident happened in the veranda and not inside the

house. The version given by P.Ws.1 to 3 about abusing in the

name of caste and threatening happened in the house but

subsequently, statement was developed stating that incident

happened in the veranda. Improvement of evidence of

witnesses to show to the Court that incident happened in the

veranda contrary to earlier evidence, such improvement

cannot be based to record conviction. I do not find any

infirmity in the findings of the Court below regarding

acquittal.