Telangana High Court
Parepalli Bheemaiah, Warangal vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., Hyd on 28 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.988 OF 2017 and 75 OF 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
Criminal appeal No.988 of 2017 is filed by the State
aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.12.2014 in S.C.No.428
of 2013, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad,
wherein the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 were
acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and accused No.1 was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304
Part II of IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015 is filed by
appellant/accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment dated
09.12.2014 in S.C.No.428 of 2013, on the file of Principal
Sessions Judge, Adilabad, for convicting him for the offence
under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the appellant-State in Crl.A.No.988 of 2017 and
respondent-State in Crl.A.No.75 of 2015 and learned
counsel for respondent in Crl.A.No.988 of 2017.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and
2 are own brothers. The deceased namely Gundla Swamy
and the accused belong to the same community and all of
them are residents of Jogapur Village. PW.1 is the wife of
the deceased and PWs.2 and 3 are the parents of the
deceased. The deceased admonished the daughter of the
sister-in-law of accused No.1, when she went into the
forest area along with her boy friend, for which accused
No.1 bore a grudge against the deceased and used to abuse
and threaten the deceased.
4. On the night of 05.06.2013, the deceased slept at the
house of PW.6. The next day morning i.e., 06.06.2013, at
04:00 a.m., the deceased, PWs.5, 6 and LWs.7 to 11 (not
examined) along with accused No.2 went to the forest for
hunting and hunted a forest pig.
5. Accused No.1 came to know that a forest pig was
hunted and for the reason of not sharing the meat of forest
pig, there was altercation in between the accused No.1 and
the deceased. Accused No.1 then decided to kill the
deceased and accordingly, while the deceased was going
back, he beat the deceased on his head with an axe with an
intent to kill him. The deceased died on the spot.
6. Learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of eye
witnesses, however, found that the act of hitting the
deceased on his head had taken place pursuant to a
quarrel in between the accused No.1 and the deceased.
Accordingly, the attack was not pre-mediated and was on
the spur of the moment.
7. Admittedly, the alleged attack by accused No.1 was
on the head of the deceased. Only for the reason of accused
No.2 being the brother of accused No.1, would not entail
accused No.2 for conviction. The learned Sessions Judge
has rightly acquitted the accused No.2. Further, on the
facts, since the attack was pursuant to a quarrel that took
place in between the accused No.1 and the deceased
regarding sharing of meat of a forest pig that was hunted,
learned Sessions Judge's finding that the act of culpable
homicide did not amount to murder cannot be found fault
with.
8. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate
Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias
Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 held as
follows:
"15. It is now well settled that the power of the
High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no
different from its power in an appeal from
conviction. It can review and consider the entire
evidence and come to its own conclusions by
either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial
court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the
trial court. However, if the High Court decided to
depart from the conclusions reached by the trial
court, it should pay due attention to the grounds
on which acquittal was based and state the
reasons as to why it finds the conclusions leading
to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear
in mind that
(i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused is fortified by the findings of the trial
court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any
doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage
of examining the demeanour of the witnesses.
The crux of the matter, however, is whether the
High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel
the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given by
the trial court."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu v. State of
Kerala 2 held as follows:
(2006) 11 SCC 444
Crl.A.No.104/09, dated 11.08.2010
"12. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram
Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again
examined the earlier judgments of this Court and
laid down that an "order of acquittal should not
be lightly interfered with even if the court
believes that there is some evidence pointing out
the finger towards the accused."
13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias
Baijnath & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 271], this Court
gave certain illustrative circumstances in which
the Court would be justified in interfering with a
judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The
circumstances includes:
i) The High Court's decision is based on
totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the
settled legal position;
ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary
to evidence and documents on record;
iii) The entire approach of the High Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal
leading to grave miscarriage of justice;
iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly
unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law
and facts on the record of the case;
v) This Court must always give proper weight
and consideration to the findings of the High
Court;
vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant
in interfering with a case when both the Sessions
Court and the High Court have recorded an order
of acquittal."
10. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of
the learned Sessions Judge.
11. It is informed by learned Public Prosecutor that
accused No.1 had undergone the sentence of seven years of
imprisonment as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.
As such, the cause in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015 does
not survive.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.988 of 2017 is
dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015 is disposed
off.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 28.01.2025
KRR
