Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp., High Court vs Baman Joddraj , Jodya, Nizamabad Dist., ... on 14 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1060 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by
the judgment dated 11.08.2010, passed in S.C.No.93 of 2006,
by the VII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),
Nizamabad, Bodhan, whereunder accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8
were acquitted for the offence under Section 396 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.09.2004, PW1,
who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint stating
that his deceased son aged about 16 years went into forest
area to graze cattle, which were about 80 sheep and goats,
but did not return back from the forest. Therefore, their
family members and others went in search of the deceased
and found dead body of the deceased, who is son of PW1.
PW1 came to know that the respondents/accused attempted
to commit theft of goats, however when resisted by the
deceased, the accused fled.
3. On the basis of the complaint received from PW1, the
police registered a case under Section 396 of IPC. During the
KS,J
course of investigation all accused viz., A1 to A8 were arrested
and in their confession, they confessed to the police regarding
commission of murder of the deceased with axe and knife,
which were marked as MO1 and MO2 respectively. Pursuant
to the confession made by the accused, said MO1 and MO2
were seized in the presence of independent witnesses.
Further, during the course of investigation, the Police found
that all A1 to A8 were vagabonds and earlier worked in
Peoples War Group (PWG), which is a banned Naxalite
Association.
4. On the basis of circumstantial evidence, the police filed
charge-sheet against A1 to A8. During the course of trial,
learned Sessions Judge examined PW1 to PW21 and marked
Exs.P1 to P33. Learned Sessions Judge found that the entire
case rests on circumstantial evidence and it is for the
prosecution to prove the circumstances relied by them beyond
reasonable doubt and such circumstances should form a
complete chain ruling out the innocence of the accused.
However, except the seizure made at the instance of the
accused, there was no other convincing evidence. In fact,
learned Sessions Judge also found that the independent
KS,J
witnesses to seizure of MO1 and MO2 and other witnesses
have admitted that the accused were shown in the police
station prior to seizure and identification parade.
5. Having gone through the record, it discloses that except
the evidence of seizure, there is no last seen theory, which
was proved by the prosecution. Only for the reason of alleged
seizures made at the instance of accused, without there being
any other corroborating medical or oral evidence, learned
Sessions Judge found that no case was made out.
6. 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 analyzed. 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
KS,J
7. 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."
8. Unless there are compelling reasons to interfere with the
findings of the learned Trial Judge, the Appellate Court
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
KS,J
cannot interfere in the cases of acquittal. There are no
reasons to come to a different conclusion from what learned
Sessions judge has discussed while recording acquittal. Only
on the basis of recovery of axes and knife, it cannot be said
that the accused were perpetrators of the crime.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.10.2024
Dua
