Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ... vs M.Ramu, Chintal on 17 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1193 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The State, filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of acquittal
of the respondent/accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Medchal, R.R.District, in CC.No.812 of 1998, dated
30.06.2003, for the offence under Section 380 of Indian Penal
Code.
2. The defacto complainant who was examined PW.1 in the case
lodged complaint on 16.05.1998, alleging that the previous night at
about 9.00 p.m., he returned home and after dinner he and the
other family members slept. The next day morning he found that
one Titan Watch, Citizen ladies wrist watch and Max pager were
missing which were worth Rs.7,500/-.
3. The Police having taken complaint, investigated into the case
and identified the accused as the person who committed theft.
MOs.1 to 3 were seized at the instance of the accused in the
presence of PW.3-independent witness.
4. The learned Magistrate found that the only evidence is that of
PW.3 who speaks about the recovery of MOs.1 to 3. However, PW.3
denied having knowledge of the person who drafted the
panchanama-Ex.P2. He further stated that he went on his personal
work to the Police Station where the accused was present.
5. The learned Magistrate found that apart from the evidence of
PW.3, there is no other evidence to prove that MOs.1 to 3 were
recovered at the instance of the accused. Even the evidence of PW.3
is doubtful since he admitted that he does not know about the
person who drafted panchanama and other witnesses to the
seizure were not examined.
6. 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 of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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 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."
8. There are no compelling reasons to reverse the well reasoned
Judgment of the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 17.02.2025
tk
