Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P.Rep.By P.P., H.C., Hyd. vs Chakali Yadaiah on 10 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1002 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused
has filed the present appeal.
2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor and Sri M.Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent/accused.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW.2 is the victim girl and
PW.1 is the mother of the victim girl. According to PWs.1 and 2, they
went to the police station on 10.05.2008 and filed a written
complaint stating that PW.1 was residing in the house of her
parents. PW.1 developed intimacy with the accused about 8 years
prior and the accused also married her. The accused was already
married and accused's wife and children were living separately,
however, accused lived with PW.1. Since 5 years, the accused
started harassing PW.1 for which reason, PWs.1 and 2 started living
separately from accused. The accused used to visit the house of
PW.1 frequently. On 07.05.2008, PW.1 went to attend coolie work,
leaving the victim-PW.2 and another daughter in the house. On the
said day it is alleged that the accused raped PW.2 by gagging her
mouth with cloth and also threatened to kill her, if she reveals the
incident to anyone. The complaint was filed three days after the
incident. The case was registered by the Inspector and the victim was
sent for medical examination. The doctor-PW.8 examined the victim
and stated in her chief-examination as follows:
"According to FSL report, Semen and Spermatozoa are not
detected, blood not detected in the smear sent on glass slides
for examination. Hence my final opinion regarding the victim
girl, she did not undergo sexual intercourse. Ex.P8 is FSL
report and Ex.P9 is final opinion."
4. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused mainly on
the ground that the entire case as narrated by PWs.1 and 2 before
the Court below was a complete improvement from their earlier
statement. Further, the medical evidence also did not support the
case of PWs.1 and 2. A delay of 3 days in lodging the complaint was
also not explained, and according to the witnesses they went on with
their life normally for three days after the incident.
5. PW.11-Investigating Officer admitted that:
"It is true that PW.2 did not state before me that the
accused removed his clothes and her clothes and put his
private part into her private part and that he threatened her
and made her to wash the blood stained clothes."
6. Similarly, PW.10-S.I of Police, Telkapally P.S. in his cross
examination, stated as follows;
"It is true that PW.1 did not state in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement as
well as Ex.P1 that she was informed by her daughter that the
accused put his private part into her private part and after
completion of the offence the accused asked her daughter to wash
her clothes."
7. It is admitted that PW.1 and the accused were not on cordial
terms. They were fighting with each other in the background of the
differences in between them. According to the learned Sessions
Judge, a false complaint was filed.
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
(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.
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 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.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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. The entire case as narrated by the witnesses, is during the
course of trial is a complete improvement from their earlier version.
There is absolutely no corroboration from the evidence of doctor, who
examined the victim girl and the doctor specifically stated that there
was no penetration, any kind of sexual assault and rape was ruled
out.
11. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings
of the learned Sessions Judge, which are based on record.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.02.2025
tk
