Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Ganta Rajendar on 6 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.878 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the
judgment of the acquittal of the respondents/accused for the
offences under Sections 290 and 506 of IPC and Section
3(1)(g)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act,
2015.
2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State
and the learned counsel appearing for the victim/de-facto
complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 owned
Ac.4-32 gts of land in Sy.No.189 at Makloor Thanda of
Gangaram Thanda of Indalwai Mandal. The allegation is that
all the accused have gone to the land of P.W.1 on 06.06.2019
questioning the digging of bore well in his land and attacked
P.W.1 and abused him in the name of his caste. Aggrieved by
the said incident, the complaint was filed after 5 days i.e., on
11.06.2019 with Indalwai Police.
4. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses
P.Ws.1 to 5 and basing on the evidence of all the documents
Exs.P.1 to P.11 found the accused not guilty on the following
grounds:-
(1) P.W.2, who is the father of P.W.1 was working as
ARSI at Kamareddy and on account of his influence,
he managed the Police and filed a false complaint.
(2) The dispute pertains to land and purely civil in
nature, P.W.2 converted it into a criminal case and
exerted pressure on the accused.
(3) There is no iota of evidence as no demarcation
was done to the disputed land and further to prove
that P.W.1 purchased it.
(4) The land of Ac.4-32 gts in Sy.No.189 where the
incident had taken place, there is no demarcation by
revenue officials and no proof is filed that A-1 to A-4
have committed wrongful dispossession of P.W.1
from his land.
5. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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.
6. 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;
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
7. The complaint was filed with a delay of 5 days.
Admittedly, the accused were holding land and also the
complaint. It is not placed on record regarding demarcation
of land. The dispute is purely civil in nature. Further, the
delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint is also not explained.
8. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment of the Sessions Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.11.2024
dv
