The State Of Telangana vs Kuram Venkatesh Yerra Venkatesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4138 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4138 Tel
Judgement Date : 21 October, 2024

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Kuram Venkatesh Yerra Venkatesh on 21 October, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.912 OF 2024

J U D G M E N T:

1. The State is questioning the judgment of acquittal of

the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.187 of

2022 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Sathupally. Though charge sheet was filed against accused

Nos.1 to 4, accused Nos.3 and 4 were not charged and

charges under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

were framed only against accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

appellant-State and learned counsel for the

respondents/accused. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, who is the

de facto complainant was attacked by accused Nos.1 and 2

with sticks and attempted to commit murder. On the basis

of complaint of the attack, the police registered the case and

charge sheeted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under

Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. Learned Sessions Judge, having examined PWs.1 to

12, of whom, PW.8, who is the victim, found that the

evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be believed for

the following reasons.

i) PW.11/Doctor who treated PW.8 stated that, PW.8 did

not state anything about the attack on him with sticks by

the accused.

ii) At the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2, a case under

Section SCs/STs was registered against PW.8.

iii) PW.8 stated that he was discharged on 30.10.2021.

However, the Doctor/PW.11 stated that PW.8 was in the

hospital from 22.10.2021 to 26.10.2021, which falsifies the

version of PW.8. In fact, PW.12/Investigating officer

evidence and PW.8's evidence regarding hospitalization is

discrepant.

iv) In the Judgment reported in 2021 (1) ALD (Crl.) 77

(TS) in between State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Gothi

Deepchand and Others under similar circumstances, case

was dismissed against the accused, since the prosecution

case was doubtful.

5. 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 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.

6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 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-

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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."

7. As rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge, the

version of PW.8 regarding assault of PW.1 with sticks not

stated before the Doctor at the earliest point of time, casts

any amount of doubt regarding version being correct. More

so, PW.8 claims that PW.1 was discharged on 30.10.2021,

however, the record speaks otherwise. In view of such

discrepancies and also in the background of there being

motive for false implication, the learned Sessions Judge has

rightly recorded acquittal.

8. There are no compelling reasons to interfere since the

findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record

and reasonable.