Telangana High Court
Smt. Kanchan Makhija, Hyd And 3 Otrs., vs Sashi Arora, Chennai And Anr. Rep Pp., on 25 October, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.631 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed questioning the conviction recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge while reversing the acquittal recorded by the
learned II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in
CC.No.546 of 2007.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.04.2006, one
lady by name Kumari Rithu (neither arrayed as accused nor
examined as witness), daughter of Accused No.1 took PW.1 to their
house situated at Hanuman Tekdi and that Accused Nos.1 to 4 along
with one male person, beat PW.1 and obtained her signatures on
blank cheques, blank papers and register. It is further alleged that
PW.1 was forced to drink some unknown liquid and thereafter A1 to
A4 along with another male person threatened PW.1 with dire
consequences that if she reveals the said incident to anybody, they
would kill her son. PW.1 was sent back to her home in an auto. PW.1
after reaching home vomited and thereafter left to Mata Mandir at
Begum Bazar. On observing the conduct of PW.1, PW.3 (son of PW.1)
followed PW.1 to the temple where PW.1 narrated the alleged
incident to PW.3.
3. PW.1 was admitted in Care Hospital where PW.5-Medical
Officer treated PW.1 and issued Ex.P2-MLC certificate. PW.6-Head
Constable visited the said hospital in the night hours of 21.06.2006
and recorded statement of PW.1, which is Ex.P1. Basing on the said
report, PW.8-Sub-Inspector of Police issued Ex.P3-FIR. PW.8 also
visited the hospital and recorded statements of PWs.1 to 3 and LW.4.
PW.8 collected substance of vomiting of PW.1 from hospital and sent
the same to FSL for analysis. Thereafter, PW.7 took over the
investigation and examined PWs.4 and LW.6. On receipt of Ex.P2-
medical report, PW.7 filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 5.
A5 was absconding and as such the case against him was split up by
trial Court.
4. The Hon'ble II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Hyderabad, framed charges against the accused on two counts i.e. i)
under Section 347 of the IPC on the allegation that A1 to A4 along
with one Mahendra Sabarwal wrongfully confined PW.1 and obtained
her signatures on cheques, blank papers & register with an intention
to extract the property of PW.1 and made PW.1 to drink unknown
drink and ii) under Section 506 of IPC for threatening PW.1 by
confining her in the house in order to extract her signatures on some
blank papers and on register, forcibly.
5. The Trial Court vide its Judgment in CC.No.546 of 2007 dated
18.01.2012, acquitted all the accused, mainly on the ground that
there were disputes in between PW.1, PW.2 and the accused. Further
there is no independent corroboration to the version of PW.1.
6. The complainant/PW.1 preferred an appeal before the
Honourable Sessions Court. The Honourable III Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, vide its Judgment in
Crl.A.308 of 2012 dated 09.06.2014 recorded conviction for offences
under Section 347 & 506 of IPC, by reversing the Judgment of
acquittal.
7. The learned Sessions Judge in Appeal found that the version of
PW.4 who is an independent witness can be believed since he
corroborated the version of PWs.1 to 3. Accordingly, on the basis of
PW.4's evidence, the acquittal was reversed.
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
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;
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
In cases of acquittal
10. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered that the
trial Court had the occasion to record the evidence of witnesses and
also examine the demeanor of witnesses. In the background of the
differences between the accused and PW.1 when admittedly A1 filed
criminal case against PWs.1 to 3, the version given by PW.1
implicating the accused 1 to 4 was suspected and benefit of doubt
was extended to the accused. Further, PW.1 is wife of PW.2 and
PW.3 is son of PWs.1 and 2. PW.4 is employee of PW.2.
11. As seen from the observations of the Honourable Supreme
Court, there have to be compelling circumstances while reversing an
order of acquittal. Nowhere, the learned Sessions Judge has found
that the finding of the learned Magistrate is improper or not based on
record. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is that on the
basis of facts, the Court can arrive at another view while considering
the evidence of PW.4 corroborating the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.
Admittedly, the evidence of PW.4 is hear-say in nature. He is not a
witness to any kind of detention of PW.1 by the accused. PW.4 went
to the hospital and on information he stated that PW.1 was detained
by the accused.
12. The learned Sessions Judge had committed an error in
reversing the well reasoned Judgment of the learned Magistrate only
on the basis of hear-say evidence of PW.4. In the background of the
case when there were pending civil and criminal disputes in between
PW.1 to PW.3 and A1, the same was overlooked by the Sessions
Judge. Though, the Sessions Judge discussed regarding the
background of the disputes in between them, however, placing
reliance on the hear-say evidence of PW.4, reversed the order of
acquittal which is erroneous. PW.4 is none other than the employee
of PW.2. Daughter of A1, who according to PW.1 took her to the
house of A1, was neither examined nor made as accused.
13. For the above said reasons, the findings of the learned Sessions
Judge cannot sustain and the appellants/A1 to A4 succeed in the
present appeal.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the
Judgment of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad in Crl.A.No.308/2012, dt.09.06.2014. The appellants/A1
to A4 are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds
shall stand discharged.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 25.10.2024
tk
