Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs B.Giri, on 12 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.233 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State
and learned counsel for the accused/respondent
Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal is filed by the
appellant/State under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C
aggrieved by the judgment in C.C.No.33 of 2001 dated
18.03.2002 passed by the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Ranga Reddy
District, whereby, the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3
were sentenced to fine under Section 324 r/w 34 of
IPC. However, finding the accused not guilty for the
offence under Section 452 of IPC which is punishable
for house trespass and causing hurt.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that once the Court has believed the version of
prosecution that the accused have gone to the house
of PW.1 and caused injury, convicting them under
Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitting them under
Section 425 of IPC is erroneous.
4. 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 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.
5. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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.
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."
6. The incident is of the year 1992 and charge
sheet was filed in the year 1993. The trial went on for
nearly 10 years and learned Magistrate found that the
prosecution has failed to prove the offence under
Section 452 of IPC for criminal trespass.
7. Having gone through the record, the learned
Magistrate had given adequate reasons stating that
the incident did not happen within the house
premises, as such, the incident of 452 of IPC does not
arise. I do not find any reasons to differ with the
findings of the learned Magistrate.
8. Accordingly, the Appeal fails and dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:12.09.2024
mmr
