Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Alakunta Raju on 6 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1547 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
This appeal is filed by State aggrieved by the acquittal recorded
by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in
SC.No.97 of 2015, dated 06.07.2017, for the offences under Sections
302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 and under Sections
411 and 414 of Indian Penal Code against A2.
2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2014, the dead
body of the deceased was found in a pool of blood by PW.3-Papi
Reddy, who informed the same to PW.1- son of the deceased. PW.1
went there and found the deceased in a pool of blood. PW.1 also
found cut injury on the throat of the deceased and also that gold
ornaments were missing. The body was sent for postmortem
examination. PW.14-postmortem doctor found two stab injuries on
the left side of the neck of the deceased resulting in her death. On
17.02.2014 at 8.30 A.M., complaint was filed by PW.1. On
18.03.2014, Accused No.1 was arrested and on the basis of his
confession, Accused No.2 was identified as the person who was in
possession of the jewellery of the deceased. A2 pledged the gold
jewellery and obtained loan. Both A1 and A2 were arrested.
4. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants mainly on
the following grounds.
i) There is no direct evidence to implicate A1 and A2 and the entire
evidence is based on circumstantial evidence.
ii) The independent witnesses PWs.5 to 8 turned hostile to the
prosecution case and the Public Prosecutor did not elicit any
information from the witnesses.
iii) The evidence of PWs.9 to 16 who stated about the ornaments
being recovered cannot be made basis to infer that the murder was
committed by A1 and consequently, the jewellery was also taken
away.
iv) Pws.12 and 13 are the witnesses to the seizure whose evidence is
contradictory and no reliance can be placed on both the witnesses to
conclude that jewellery was seized at the instance of the accused.
5. 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.
6. 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:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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 Ex.Pert, 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."
7. There are no reasons which are compelling in nature to
interfere with the finding of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, which are reasonable, probable and based on
record. In the said circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the
finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in acquitting the
accused.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.02.2025
tk
