Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Battu Mothilal, on 12 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.263 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The present criminal appeal is filed by the
appellant/State under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C
aggrieved by the judgment in S.C.No.33 of 2001 dated
19.11.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nizamabad in acquitting the accused, who are
respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein for the offence under
Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State
and learned counsel for the accused/respondent
Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution case, there were
disputes between PWs.1 and 2 and accused Nos.1 to 4
regarding agricultural land. The Civil case was also
filed by the PW.1, for which reason the accused bore
grudge against her. The incident happened on
06.09.2008 when accused nos.2 to 4 went to the
agricultural field around 8.00 AM. When accused No.2
caught hold of PW.2, accused No.1 attacked her with
an axe, however, she escaped the axe blow and
received injury on her shoulder. For the reason of
accused attacking PW.2, complaint was filed. The
police registered case under Section 307 of IPC. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed for the said
offence.
4. Learned trial Court judge examined PWs.1 to
10 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. PW.2 is the victim. The
learned trial Court Judge found that witnesses PWs.1
and 2 gave contradictory versions regarding the time
of offence being committed. According to PW.2, the
incident had taken place at 10.00 AM and complaint
was filed at 10.00 AM itself. There is no possibility of
lodging the complaint at the same time when the
incident happened since PW.2 was in hospital for 16
days taking treatment. In fact, the prosecution
witnesses failed to provide the details of the land and
the disputes or that the incident had taken place. The
witnesses PWs.1, 3 and 4 are all interested witnesses
and related to PW.2. In the background of the
Doctor/PW.8 not stating that injury of PW.2 could be
caused by MO.3/Axe, the prosecution has failed to
prove its case.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that there is no reason why PW.2 would file
false case if at all there was no attack by accused
Nos.1 to 4.
6. 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.
7. 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."
8. Learned Sessions Judge has given adequate
reasons and pointed out the discrepancies in between
the evidence of witnesses which in fact go to the root
of the case and falsifies the version given by the
witnesses. Admittedly, there were differences
regarding land in between accused and PW.2. Hence, I
do not find any infirmity with the findings of the
learned Sessions Judge.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:12.09.2024
mmr
