Telangana High Court
Challuri Rajakomuraiah vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp And 2 ... on 7 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.352 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/de-facto
complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.07.2013 in
Special Sessions.Case.No.21 of 2011, on the file of Special
Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA)
Act-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Karimnagar, acquitting the respondents/accused for the
offences under Sections 447, 427 and 323 of IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of SCs & Sts (POA) Act, 1989.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/de-facto
complainant and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused
the record.
3. The case of P.W.1 who is the de-facto complainant is
that he lodged a complaint on 05.08.2010 alleging that he
owns a land admeasuring Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.429 situated near
Nallagutta. On 02.08.2010, the accused drove the tractor in
the maize crop of the complainant resulting in damage of
Rs.1,000/-. When questioned as to why accused has done
so, the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language "Neevu Evari
Chenulo Nundi Povaara Arey Madiga jathiki konchem bhumi
unte agarendukura", "Madiga Anakunte Dora Ani Antaraa
Baga Matladuthunnavu Madiga Lanjekoduka". The accused
also beat him with chappal.
4. On the basis of the complaint, charge sheet was filed
against the accused/respondents.
5. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused mainly
on the following grounds:-
1. P.W.9/Investigating Officer admitted
that no injuries were found on the body
of P.W.1
2. No medical certificate was produced by
P.W.1 to show that he received injuries.
3. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging the
complaint and no explanation was
given.
4. Nothing incriminating was recovered at
the scene of offence.
5. Investigating Officer admitted that
P.W.1 demanded money in the case and
P.Ws.2 and 3 also supported.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto
complainant would submit that prima facie, a case has to be
looked into and A-1 and A-2 abused appellant/complainant
and also beat him with chappal.
7. 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.
8. 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:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
"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."
9. P.W.1 has not explained the delay that was caused
satisfactorily. According to him, he received injuries.
However, neither the Doctor was examined nor certificate is
produced. The Investigating Officer did not find any injuries
on the complainant. The Court further found that P.W.1 was
in habit of filing false complaints to extract money. The
Investigating Officer admitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 were charge
sheeted on the allegation of trying to extract money.
10. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the
accused.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 07.02.2025
dv
