Telangana High Court
State Of Telangana vs Habeeb Abbas , Shaik Faizan on 11 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the
judgment dated 04.10.2017 in S.C.No.395 of 2016, on the file
of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,
acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under
Sections 302, 382 and 356 r/w. 75 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the appellants.
Perused the record.
3. The Police laid charge sheet against the
respondents/accused for the above said offences mainly on
the ground that accused had snatched the chain weighing
3½ tulas of gold of the defacto complainant's mother while
they were proceeding on a motor cycle. Due to the said
impact of snatching while being mobile on the bike, the
deceased Sumithra fell down from the bike and died while
undergoing treatment. The incident happened on 17.07.2015.
During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested
on 16.11.2015 i.e., 4 months after the incident. The Test
Identification Parade was conducted on 07.05.2016 i.e., 5½
months after his arrest. In fact, the case of the complainant
is that a stranger snatched the chain while P.W.1 was going
with the deceased on his motor cycle. Since the identity of
the person was on the basis of Test Identification Parade
which was conducted nearly 9½ months after the incident,
learned Sessions Judge found that said identification in the
facts of the case could not be believed. Further, apart from
the Test Identification Parade, there is no other evidence to
connect the accused with the crime.
4. Learned Sessions Judge also found that recovery of
M.O.1 also could not be believed, for the reason of not
conducting Test Identification Parade of the property in
accordance with Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice.
5. Apart from the said identification after 9 ½ months and
the doubtful identity of gold chain of the deceased, learned
Sessions Judge found that prosecution failed to prove any
other circumstance to substantiate the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
6. 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.
7. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
8. The two circumstances relied on by the prosecution i.e.,
the identity of accused being established by Test
Identification Parade after 9½ months of incident and
recovery of M.O.1 cannot form basis to find accused guilty.
Within seconds, the chain was snatched and the person
snatching the chain fled. In the said circumstances, identity
after 9½ months becomes doubtful. Not conducting Test
Identification Parade of gold chain/M.O.1 also does not
establish that M.O.1 belonged to deceased. Further, there is
a contradiction in the evidence of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.9
regarding time of the incident and vehicle on which P.W.1
traveled along with his deceased mother. P.W.1 stated that
incident happened at 2:30 p.m. whereas P.W.9 stated that
incident happened at 3:30 p.m. Further, description of the
vehicle on which the deceased was travelling also differs from
P.W.1 to P.W.9.
9. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the
findings of the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the
accused.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 11.02.2025
dv
