Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs R.Narsimha Murthy, on 12 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.234 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The present criminal appeal is filed by the
appellant/State under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C
questioning the judgment dated 22.10.2001 in
Crl.A.No.197 of 2000 passed by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District in reversing the judgment of conviction by the
trial Court for the offence under Section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State
and learned counsel for the accused/respondent
Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution against the
respondents/accused is that the complaint was filed
on 24.06.1995 stating that accused No.1 was married
with PW.1 on 08.02.1991. However, Rs.1,25,000/-
dowry was given, including gold ornaments and
utensils. After the marriage, accused No.2/mother-in-
law started harassing wife of accused No.1 (PW.1) and
ill-treated her demanding for getting additional dowry
of Rs.1,07,500/-. Derogatory words were used while
harassing her. On the basis of complaint filed, the
police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections
498-A, 494 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
guilty and accordingly convicted them. However, only
sentence of fine was imposed to accused Nos.3 and 4,
keeping in view that they are old aged.
5. Learned Sessions Judge having gone through
the record found that the allegations made by the
witnesses during the course of trial were
improvements and further, letters Exs.P2 to P5
supporting the version that there were
misunderstandings between accused No.1 and his
wife. Such misunderstandings would not amount to
harassment.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that the well-reasoned judgment of trial Court
was reversed, which is incorrect.
7. Having gone through the record, the learned
Sessions Judge had discussed the evidence placed on
record and found that the evidence of witnesses reveal
that there were misunderstandings between PW.1 and
accused No.1. Further, the prosecution was not able
to prove that accused No.1 married again to be
punished under Section 494 of IPC.
8. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT
of Delhi) and another1, held that while dealing with
an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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 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-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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
10. The reasons given by the learned Sessions
Judge are based on record. If two views are possible
the view that is favour of accused has to be taken in to
consideration by the Court. In fact, the marriage
happened in the year 1991 and complaint was lodged
in the year 1995 and nearly 30 years have passed by,
since the incident had taken place. Both are affected
and also to the reason of incident being 30 years old,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State
stands dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
mmr
