Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Kancharla Sharada on 8 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.999 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the
judgment of the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the
offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989.
2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of
the State and the victim/de-facto complainant.
3. According to the prosecution case, de-facto complainant
/P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that at 6 a.m. on
20.02.2015 when he along with his wife/P.W.2 were going to
the tap in front of the house of the accused to fetch water,
A-2 who is the wife of A-1 (died) abused them not to touch
the tap as they belong to SC community. On the basis of the
complaint that was filed, Police investigated the case and filed
charge sheet.
4. Learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and
marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The defense during the course of trial
marked Exs.D.1 to D.3 which are portions of Section 161
Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4.
5. Learned Sessions Judge found that even according to
the admission of P.W.1, A-2 and her deceased husband (A-1)
quarreled with them earlier. In the present case, complaint
was filed on the next day i.e., 21.02.2015. However, the
Investigating Officer examined the witnesses on 23.02.2015
and also stated that incident happened on 22.03.2015,
however, no steps were taken by the Investigating Officer to
correct the said date. In view of the discrepancies regarding
date of occurrence, date of examination of witnesses and also
there being enemity in between P.W.1, P.W.2 and
appellant/A-2 and her husband (A-1), learned Sessions
Judge found favour with the defense version that they were
falsely implicated, accordingly, acquitted the accused.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that A-1
died and A-2 is his wife. A-1 was prosecuted though it was
specifically stated by witnesses that both of them have
abused P.Ws.1 and 2 in the name of their caste, learned
Sessions Judge had acquitted them.
7. 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.
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:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
9. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge that (i) there
were disputes earlier between complainant and accused,
(ii) prosecution version regarding lodging of complaint with a
delay of 1 day not being explained, (iii) DSP/Investigating
Officer examining the witnesses 2 days thereafter creates any
amount of doubt cannot be found fault with. Since the
version of the complainant and Investigating Officer are
contradictory, there are no compelling reasons to interfere
with the judgment of the trial Judge.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.11.2024
dv
