Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Yedla Surya Prakash Rao on 18 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1033 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of
the respondents/A1, A4 & A5 for the offence under Sections 120-B,
and 435, 436, 204 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Dr.S.Prashanth, Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri
S.Ganesh representing Sri Srikanth Kaveti for respondents.
3. The case against A2 and A3 was abated by the Court below in
S.C.No.452 of 2017, since they died.
4. The allegation against the accused is that on 10.06.2013 at
12.:30 hours, the first accused went to the Police Station and
stated that on 09.06.2013 at 18.00 hours, they verified the files
and left the office of HMDA handing over lock to PW.1. On
10.06.2013 at about 6.45 a.m., A1 was informed by the watchman
that smoke was coming out from the windows and main doors of
HMDA office. Immediately, they went to the office and the office
was on fire. The services of the fire department was sought. The
Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the
accused.
5. The respondents/accused herein were arrayed as A1, A4 and
A5. A2 and A3 died during the pendency of trial. The trial Court
acquitted the accused for the offences alleged.
6. The learned Trial Judge found that;
i) PW.1 who is the material witness did not speak about the
presence of A1 at the time of incident and he has fixed
responsibility on other accused A2 to A5.
ii) PW.1 further admitted that the door was not locked when the
keys were handed over to him by A2 and there was no night
watchman also.
iii) Against PW.12 disciplinary action was initiated by HMDA who
was the security guard at the time when fire accident happened.
iv) According to PW.1 he took over the keys from A2 and when he
opened the doors of the office, it was on fire.
v) Since the time of handing over keys to PW.1 till the time it was
opened, there is no evidence by the prosecution as to what
transpired in that period.
vi) The electric meter was sent for analysis to know the reason as to
whether there was any electrical short circuit or not. PW.10-
Assistant Engineer of APTSSPDCL, stated that there was possibility
of fire accident due to loose connection of wiring internally.
vii) The incident happened in the third floor of the building.
However, PW.17 who is the Investigating Officer stated that the
incident took place in the first floor of the building. PW.8 who is the
owner of the building stated that the incident happened in the
second floor of the building.
7. On the basis of the said inconsistencies, the learned Sessions
Judge found that no offence was made out against the accused.
8. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
10. The learned Sessions Judge has found that keys were handed
over to PW.1 and from the time of handing over keys till the fire
emanated, no one has seen any of the accused. Further, the
Assistant Engineer of Electricity Department did not rule out the
possibility of fire accident due to loose connection of wiring
internally.
11. In the said circumstances, on the basis of suspicion, there
cannot be any conviction. There are no compelling reasons to
reverse the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.11.2024
tk
