Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., vs Shaik Shah Wali , Wali, Kurnool Dt And 2 ... on 6 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1032 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of
respondents/Accused recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, in SC.No.212 of 2013, dated 18.09.2015.
2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto
complainant lodged a criminal complaint stating that his son aged
around 9 years went to the school by boarding a CRPF school bus,
but did not return. The boy was a student of Gowthami Residential
High School, Meerpet. He used to return home by 4.30 p.m., every
day.
4. On the basis of the complaint given, the crime was registered as
'boy missing'.
5. During investigation, on 13.11.2010 and 14.11.2010, the
mother of the victim received phone call from the accused demanding
a ransom amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The section of law was altered to
364-A of IPC. On analyzing the call details, it was found that the calls
were made through a coin box situated at MBNR cross roads,
Aramghar. The accused also made a phone call on 29.11.2010 from
the coin box demanding a ransom amount of Rs.15 lakhs. The Police
laid a trap to apprehend the accused. The accused then came on their
vehicle, however, went away on observing that the Police were at the
scene. A1 was apprehended and interrogated by the Police. A1
confessed that he committed crime along with A2 and A3. On the
basis of the confession of A1, the dead body was recovered. The body
was identified with the help of wearing apparel on the body.
6. A1 is driver of CRPF bus. According to the prosecution case, in
order to extract money from the parents of the victim, he committed
murder of the boy. Charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 364-A,
201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal code.
7. The learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under the
said penal provisions, found that the accused was not guilty of the
offence alleged.
8. The thrust of the prosecution case is the call records that were
seized during the course of investigation, pertaining to the mobile
phones of A1, A2 and the mother of the deceased. However, the call
data record that was produced was not certified under Section 65-B of
the Evidence Act. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in P.V.Anvar v. P.K.Basheer and others 1, the
learned Sessions Judge found that no reliance can be placed on the
call records. Once the call records were eschewed from consideration,
there is absolutely no other evidence on which the Court can rely
upon to point the accused as the persons who are responsible for
kidnapping the deceased boy. Further there was no amplifiable DNA
yield by the FSL to conduct DNA test, as such it was not conclusively
proved that the dead body was that of the son of PW.1. The
identification of the dead body was only on the basis of clothes found
on the dead body.
9. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 2, 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
CDJ 2014 SC 790
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in
reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 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 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."
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
11. The main evidence to connect the accused, are the call records.
However, certificate was not given under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act to rely upon such call records. In the absence of certification, the
call records cannot be looked into, as held by the Honourable
Supreme Court. The dead body found was not conclusively proved to
be that of the son of PW.1. There is absolutely no infirmity with the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge, which are based on record
and reasonable. In the said circumstances, we do not find any
reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, in acquitting the accused.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.02.2025
tk
