Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Mekala Vishnuvardhan, on 16 October, 2024
1
CRLA NO.540 OF 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.540 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
The State has preferred the present appeal questioning
the acquittal of the respondent/accused No.1 for the offence
under Section 366, 346 and 376 (2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sec.5 (i)
r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/accused
and perused the entire material on record.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that PW4/victim is
daughter of PW1 and PW2, who is aged 14 years. According to
PW1 and PW2, PW4 left the house around 3 P.M. on
18.9.2014 and did not return. They came to know that A1,
who is a neighboring villager was following the victim girl and
also expressed his love for her and A1 was also missing. The
police having taken the complaint filed by the parents of the
victim registered the case and commenced investigation.
CRLA NO.540 OF 2024
4. The evidence which was brought on record by the
prosecution is that the victim girl-PW4 was taken to Srisailam
and from Srisailam to Pargi, at both the places according to
PW4, A1 committed rape on her. The learned Session Judge
having examined the victim girl-PW4 and other witnesses
accuquited the accused on the following grounds.
i) Though it was alleged that the victim was subjected to
sexual intercourse, however the viginal swabs sent for
FSL did not find any semen or spermatozoa.
ii) The prosecution has failed to identify the place either at
Srisailam or Paragi where the Accused and PW4 stayed.
iii) The age of the victim girl-PW4 was not proved to be less
than 18 years, since the victim herself stated that she
was around 19 years.
iv) Though it was alleged that PW4 along with A1 and two
others went on motor cycles, but only 1 motorcycle was
seized and other motorcycle was not identified.
v) The police had not examined any witnesses at Srisailam
where A1 and PW4 allegedly stayed in a room at
Chamundeshwari Choultry.
CRLA NO.540 OF 2024
5. The learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of State argued that the evidence of victim girl-PW4
would suffice to infer that A1 had committed rape on her.
6. The learned Session Judge found that the entire version
of PW4 regarding stay at Srisailam or at Paragi was false, since
the said places were not identified and though
Chamundeshwari Choultry was identified, witnesses at the
said place were not examined. Further, the prosecution also
failed to prove the age of the victim girl-PW4 to be less than 18
years to attract the offence under the POCSO Act. Medical
evidence did not support the version of forceable commission
of rape by A1.
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 analyzed. The reason is
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
CRLA NO.540 OF 2024
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:
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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
CRLA NO.540 OF 2024
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 reasons given by the learned session judge regarding
acquittal of the respondents-accused needs no interference
and the prosecution failed to prove that victim was a minor
and the place of alleged offence was also not proved. The
reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be
interfered since they are based on record and reasonable.
Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the well
reasoned Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is
hereby dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.10.2024
SHA/SU
