Telangana High Court
Smt Aruva Anjamma, Rr.Dt And Anr., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp And 5 ... on 11 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.669 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/P.W.2 and
P.W.3/victims, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.03.2017
in S.C.No.624 of 2013, on the file of VII Additional District &
Sessions Judge, at Mahbubnagar, acquitting the accused/
A-1 to A-5 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, 404,
201 and 109 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State.
Perused the record.
3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
22.06.2012, the villagers of Kishan Nagar informed the Police
about a dead body that was lying in the agricultural land of
one Ashok Yadav near Rameshwaram Road. P.W.22 who is
the Inspector of Police along with his staff went there and
inspected the scene. The body was shifted to Community
Health Centre (CHC), Shadnagar and kept in the mortuary.
Next day, i.e., on 23.03.2012, P.W.1, who is the son-in-law of
the deceased, lodged a complaint stating that his father-in-
law was missing. P.W.1 identified the deceased was his
father-in-law. On the basis of the complaint filed by P.W.1,
crime was registered for the above said offences. During the
course of investigation, scene of offence panchnama was
conducted and blood stained earth was also taken. The
vehicle belonging to the deceased and a cell phone was seized
at the scene of offence.
4. While investigation was in progress, P.W.19
apprehended A-1. There was surveillance on A-1 suspecting
that he was the reason for the death of the deceased. A-1
was interrogated and at his instance, Police came to know
about complicity of other accused Nos.2 to 4. Other accused
were arrested and at the instance of A-3 and A-4, M.Os.1 to
3, one gold chain and two gold rings were seized and the said
M.Os. were identified as that of the deceased. The seizure
was from Mannapuram Finance, where the rings and chain
were pledged. During further course of investigation, blood
stained axe handle, stick, pair of gloves, towel etc. used for
the commission of offence were also seized. The call details
of the phone numbers of the accused were sought from the
service provider by the Investigating Officer. On analysis of
the data collected, there was constant communication
amongst the accused. On the basis of the circumstantial
evidence that was collected during the course of
investigation, charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-5.
According to investigation, at the instance A-1, all the
accused A-2 to A-5 conspired to kill the deceased. A-1 was
holding grudge against the deceased. Accordingly, A-2 to A-4
on 22.06.2012 attacked the deceased and killed him at the
instance of A-1.
5. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against all the
accused for the above said offences. Having considered the
evidence of P.Ws1 to 24, documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P45, M.Os.1 to 15 were marked on behalf of the
prosecution. Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked on behalf of the
defence.
6. Learned Sessions Judge found that the case against the
appellants is circumstantial in nature. The circumstances
relied on by the prosecution were not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The only basis for laying charge sheet
against the accused is confession and consequent seizure of
material objects. However, all the witnesses to the seizure of
material objects turned hostile to the prosecution case.
Further, learned Sessions Judge also found that seizures
were in fact doubtful on the basis of the contradictions that
crept into evidence of independent panch witnesses.
7. Learned Sessions Judge found that other than filing
telephone records of the accused, nothing was placed on
record by way of oral or documentary evidence to suggest
that these accused came together and at the instance of A-1,
A-2 to A-4 killed the deceased. The material objects which
were seized at the scene and also at the behest of A-4 were
not event sent to FSL. The spade handle with which the
deceased was allegedly killed cannot be taken into
consideration on account of its mere seizure and there being
no forensic evidence.
8. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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.
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;
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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. Having gone through the record, the reasons given by
the learned Sessions Judge are based on record and
reasonable. 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
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 11.02.2025
dv
