Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap., vs Cheelapally Prabhakar And 2 Others on 26 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.307 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The State filed this appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the
respondents/A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is the father-
in-law of A1. The allegation is that A1 tortured his wife-PW2
physically and mentally for additional dowry. Unable to bear the
harassment, deceased had earlier complained to the Police. Police
registered the case against A1 which was then pending before the
Court. A1 demanded that the said case has to be withdrawn,
however, the case was not withdrawn on account of the insistence
of the deceased mother-in-law that case has to continue against
accused-husband.
3. The dead body of the mother-in-law was found near
Bakkapanadi canal. On suspicion that A1 bore grudge against the
deceased, he must have killed her, complaint was filed.
Investigation was conducted by police. Scene of offence-
panchanama, inquest proceedings were held and also the body
was subjected to post-mortem examination. A1 to A3 were
arrested and their confession was recorded. Pursuant to
confession, M.O.5-stone was seized at the instance of A1.
4. The learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 10 and
marked Exs.P1 to P15. PW.1 is the father-in-law, PW.2 is the wife
of A1.
5. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution
failed to prove the case since the alleged eye-witnesses namely
Pochaiah was not examined by the Police and secondly PW.4,
before whom accused confessed, turned hostile to the prosecution
case. There was absolutely no other evidence to connect the
accused in any manner with the death of the deceased and
accordingly acquittal was recorded.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of appellant-State would submit that motive was
established and there is no reason as to why anyone else would
kill the deceased. Since the motive aspect was stated by both
PWs.1 and 2, acquittal has to be reversed.
7. Having gone through the evidence on record, the entire
charge sheet is based on the alleged confession which is
inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
learned Sessions Judge found that though it is mentioned that the
case was filed against A1, however, PWs.1 and 2 did not speak
anything about A2 and A3. PW.2 also did not state anything about
the manner in which the incident had taken place. The only
evidence of recovery of a stone-MO.5 cannot in any manner
complete the chain of circumstances against the accused.
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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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;
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. In view of the aforesaid Judgments and in view of the
hostility of PW.4 to whom the extra judicial confession was made
and there being no other evidence, the learned Sessions Judge
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
was right in rejecting the case of the prosecution and recording
acquittal. Only on the ground that there was a case pending which
was filed by PW.2 on the assumption that A1 would have killed
the mother-in-law, is farfetched and cannot be believed.
11. There are no grounds in the appeal and accordingly Criminal
Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 26.09.2024
tk
