Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Regula Devaiah on 16 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.474 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
1. The State has preferred the present appeal questioning
the acquittal of the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 7 for the
offence under Sections 307 r/w 149 of IPC and 326 r/w 149 of
Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant-complainant, learned counsel for the
respondents/accused and perused the entire material on
record.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 15.07.2019 while
PWs.7 and 8 who own 3 acres of agricultural land, were going
near to their fields, they were attacked by the accused who are
the neighboring agricultural land owners. In fact, there were
disputes between them regarding boundary issues, which were
not sorted out. All the accused around 07.30 PM attacked
PWs.7 and 8 with iron rod, sticks and stones with an intention
to kill them. PWs.7 and 8 shouted for help and accordingly
PWs.5 and 6 went to the scene of offence. On seeing PWs.5
and 6, all the accused fled. When PW.1 was informed over
phone regarding his father-PW.7 and uncle-PW.8 being
attacked, immediately PW.1 rushed to the spot and took PWs.7
and 8 to the hospital. Thereafter, PW.1 preferred complaint to
the investigating officer/PW.12. Where upon, a Crime was
registered for the offences under Sections 307 and 325 r/w
149 of IPC and investigation was taken up.
4. During the course of investigation, PW.12 proceeded to
the scene of offence and in the presence of PW.9 and another
person namely Rajireddy, scene of offence panchanama was
conducted. Witnesses PWs.2 to 6 were examined and their 161
Cr.P.C statements were also recorded. Though PW.12 tried to
record the statements of PWs.7 and 8 in the hospital, they
could not speak anything due to severe injuries, as such, their
statements were not recorded immediately.
5. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and produced
before the Court. Having collected medical certificates and
other evidence, charge sheet was filed.
6. Learned Session Judge framed charges and examined
PWs.1 to 12 on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.P1 to P6 were
also marked during trial by the prosecution.
7. Learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence
on record found that:
1) The evidence of PW.1 as well as MOs.7 and 8
were inconsistent regarding the injuries received by
PWs.7 and 8.
2) Though it was stated that all the accused
attacked and beat PWs.7 and 8 with sticks and
stones, however, only one stick was recovered and
that too is doubtful since the police officer did not
find any sticks or any stones at the scene of offence.
Further, blood stains were also not found at the
scene. The medical record which was filed does not
reflect the date of discharge of PWs.7 and 8 and the
prosecution failed to prove the alleged injuries
sustained by PWs.7 and 8.
3) Admittedly, there were disputes among PWs.1
to 4, 7 and 8 on one side and the accused on the
other regarding boundary that was fixed in between
the agricultural fields.
4) PW.10, who is an independent witness to the
seizure of MO.1, stated that he does not know the
contents of panchanama and therefore his evidence
regarding seizure cannot be believed.
5) The prosecution failed to prove exact scene of
offence and recovery of MO.1 in a convincing
manner.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
PWs.7 and 8, who were injured, have spoken about attack by
the accused. Since the injured themselves have deposed about
the attack, the question of disbelieving prosecution case on
minor contradictions that crept into during trial, cannot be
made basis to acquit the accused.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
accused supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge
as reasonable and based on record.
10. 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.
11. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
12. Admittedly, information was given by PW.1 regarding
attack by the accused basing on receiving information from
someone else. Investigating officer when approached PWs.7
and 8 in the hospital, both of them were found to be not in a
position to speak. In the said circumstances, the information
given regarding the accused assaulting PWs.7 and 8, is highly
doubtful. Secondly, there was no light at the scene and it was
pitch dark and the said aspect was also admitted by the
prosecution witnesses. In fact, during the course of
investigation, the exact place of offence was not identified.
Since the prosecution failed to prove the exact scene of offence
and also that the incident happened in the manner stated by
PWs.1 to 6, who, in fact, were not eye witnesses to the
incident, benefit of doubt was extended to the accused.
Accordingly they were acquitted. Therefore, there are no
reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge.
13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is
hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.10.2024
mmr
