Telangana High Court
P.Lalitha, Nalgonda District vs The State Of A.P.,Rep. By Pp., High Court ... on 21 February, 2025
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the defacto complainant, questioning the
acquittal of the respondents 2 to 13/A1 to A12.
2. According to the defacto complainant, she belongs to
Scheduled Caste and resident of Tekumatla Village. The accused
belong to 'Gouda' caste and are resident of the same village. The
village is located on the bank of Musi river and sand used to be
transported from the village through tractors. One Sanjeev Reddy,
who was the husband of the Tekumatla village, and his followers
used to collect Rs.20/- from each tractor, which was transporting
sand. Two months prior to lodging of the complaint, one Rambabu
and his caste people asked Sanjeev Reddy to donate Rs.50,000/- for
erecting Ambedkar statue near the bus stop of Tekumatla village.
Sanjeev Reddy gave Rs.25,000/- for erecting the statue. On
10.07.2007, accused No.1 and some of his caste people questioned
Sanjeev Reddy about donating Rs.25,000/- for erection of Ambedkar
statue and asked him to donate Rs.25,000/- for construction of
Mahankalamma temple. Differences arose between the 'Mala' caste
people and 'Gouda' caste people in the village. On 12.07.2007 at
7.00 p.m., Rambabu and his caste people, keeping the differences in
mind, beat one Dasari Dasaiah (not examined), who belongs to
Gouda caste, and a separate crime was registered for the said
incident. Again on 13.07.2007, the current motor of Accused No.4
was found in the agricultural well. All the accused herein suspected
that it was done by Suresh, who is the son-in-law of the said
Rambabu and Lalitha (appellant). With a pre-plan, all the accused
trespassed into the house of Lalitha-appellant on 14.07.2007, and
abused her in the name of caste and threatened with dire
consequences, if she did not handover her son-in-law-Suresh. A2
caught hold of her hair and A5 pulled her saree. A4 beat with a stick
on the right arm and A1 stabbed with knife on the left side of the
stomach of the appellant. On account of the assault by A1, A2, A4,
and A5, she fell unconscious. One of the accused snatched her gold
chain weighing 2 Tulas and stolen Rs.10,000/- cash from her house.
All the accused abused her in filthy language referring to her caste
and threatened that they would kill the complainant and her
husband. The appellant was then taken to the hospital, after she lost
consciousness.
3. The complaint was filed on 18.07.2007. The appellant-PW.1
explained that the delay of four days in lodging complaint was on
account of the intervention by the elders of the village, however,
since the issue was not settled, the complaint was filed.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on
record, acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
i) PWs.1 to 5, PWs.12 and 13 are close relatives of the complainant,
who supported the prosecution case. PWs.6 to 11, PWs.14 and 15
were all declared hostile to the prosecution case and did not depose
anything against the accused.
ii) The incident took place on 14.07.2007 at 7.00 A.M., in the house
of PW.1. The incident is a result of the earlier two incidents that have
taken place on 10.07.2007 and 12.07.2007.
iii) There is no explanation for not lodging complaints for the
incidents dated 10.07.2007 and 12.07.2007; and the present
complaint was filed on 18.07.2007, with a delay of 4 days.
iv) In Ex.P1, no explanation is given regarding the delay that has
occurred in lodging the complaint, and the unexplained delay is fatal
to the prosecution case.
v) PW.1 in the complaint stated that the reason for incident was sand
transport, however, she later changed her version stating that the
dispute was due to sarpanch donation.
vi) The husband of appellant belongs to TRS party, whereas A1 and
others belong to Congress party and there are political differences in
the village.
vii) During PW.1's deposition, she stated that she gave complaint on
12.07.2007 at 7.00 p.m., scribed by her, however, she stated that
Ex.P1 was not in her handwriting and scribed by someone else,
which creates suspicion.
viii) PW.1 stated that she lost consciousness and was taken to the
hospital in the Ambulance, after she was beaten with sticks and
stabbed with a knife in the stomach. However, no requisition was
given by the Investigating Officer-PW.18 to the doctor. Though, the
complaint was filed on 18.07.2007, the doctor-PW.16 stated that he
examined PW.1 on 14.07.2007.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the whole approach of the learned Sessions Judge in dividing the
witnesses as interested and dis-interested is incorrect. PW.1 testified
that all the accused attacked her in the house and she was treated in
the hospital after the accused inflicted injuries on her with sticks
and knives. The acquittal was recorded by the learned Sessions
Judge on minor contradictions, which happen in a criminal trial.
6. Having gone through the record, there is no explanation given
in Ex.P1 regarding the delay caused in lodging the FIR. During her
evidence before the Court, PW.1 did not speak about the presence of
any other person apart from the accused. The prosecution has
projected PWs.2 to 5 as eye-witnesses to the incident. However, as
already stated, their presence was not deposed by PW.1 during her
examination in the Court. There were admittedly differences in
between two rival political groups. Though, the initial complaint was
regarding the sand transport, however, the version was changed to
one of donations of 'sarpanch'. The prosecution has come up with a
tainted version by suppressing actual incident, which is evident from
the contradictory statements of the witnesses. Further, no seizures
were effected by the police, though PW.1 alleged that one gold chain
and cash were missing. Further, neither any stick, nor knife or any
objects were recovered during the course of investigation to place
before the Court.
7. 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 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:
"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:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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.
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. There are no grounds and compelling reasons to reverse the
well reasoned Judgment of the trial Court.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.02.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF 2012
Date: 21.02.2025
tk
