The State Of Telangana vs Mudrina Anjaneyulu Aka Anji
2025 Latest Caselaw 1428 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1428 Tel
Judgement Date : 28 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Mudrina Anjaneyulu Aka Anji on 28 January, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                     AND
 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

 CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1414 OF 2017 & 244 OF 2016


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

Criminal Appeal No.1414 of 2017 is filed by the

appellant-State questioning the acquittal of the

respondents/A1 to A3 for the offence of murder punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short, 'IPC').

2. Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2016 is filed by the

appellant/A3 questioning the conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 411 of IPC.

3. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the

judgment, dated 18.02.2016, in S.C.No.214 of 2014 on the

file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, they

are disposed off by way of this common judgment.

4. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.1414_2017 &244_2016

Mr. B. S. Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the

accused.

5. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that PW.1

lodged complaint with the police on 05.09.2013 stating

that the deceased, namely, Smt. Vallabhaneni Nagamani,

resident of Bagh Lingampally, was found dead in her house

with her throat slit. On the basis of the said complaint,

police registered crime No.329 of 2013 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The police went to

the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence

panchanama. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and

from them MOs.1 to 5 were seized which according to the

prosecution, were the jewellery worn by the deceased. On

the basis of the recovery, charge sheet was filed against A1

to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380,

120-B, 202 and 411 read with Section 34 of IPC against A1

and A2 and for the offence punishable under Section 411

of IPC against A3.

6. Learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 19 and

marked Exs.P1 to P27 and MOs.1 to 5, which are the

jewellery articles, along with MOs.6 to 9. Learned Sessions KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.1414_2017 &244_2016

Judge found that not a single witness has stated about the

accused being seen in the company of the deceased or any

time prior to the dead body being found. The only evidence

that was produced before the Court is the recovery of

MOs.1 to 5. Learned Sessions Judge further found that

none of the witnesses were acquainted with the accused

and did not state anything about accused having any

relation with the deceased.

7. Basing on the recovery of the ornaments, at the

instance of A2 and A3, coupled with the evidence of the

witnesses of Manappuram Finance, where the gold was

pledged, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A2 and A3

for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC for

being in possession of theft articles.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor admitted that

there is no evidence about the accused being found in the

company of the deceased at any point of time, however,

contended that recovery of MOs.1 to 5 can form basis to

reverse the judgment of acquittal and to convict the

accused and that there is no reason why the jewellery of KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.1414_2017 &244_2016

the deceased would be in possession of A2 and A3 unless

they have committed murder of the deceased.

9. Any presumption that can be drawn under Section

114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is to the extent of the

accused being in possession of jewellary, which was

subjected to theft.

10. Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is

extracted:

"That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession"

11. The recovery of jewellery i.e., MOs.1 to 5, at the

instance of A2 and A3, can only be confined to

presumption of the jewellery being stolen or recovered

stolen goods. None of the witnesses have seen the accused

at the scene. It is not even stated by the prosecution as to

how the accused planned or murdered the deceased.

For being in possession of stolen jewellery, learned

Sessions Judge has rightly convicted A2 and A3 for the

offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.

KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.1414_2017 &244_2016

12. 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.

13. 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.

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.1414_2017 &244_2016

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 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."

14. The grounds raised by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor cannot form the basis to reverse the judgment

of acquittal. Accepting the arguments of learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, at most, the evidence under Section

411 of IPC is made out. A2 and A3 were already convicted

for the said offence.

15. Keeping in view the fact that appellant/A3 in

Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2016 is having dependants to

look after and there being no other questionable KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.Nos.1414_2017 &244_2016

antecedents, the imprisonment of two years for the offence

under Section 411 of IPC is reduced to one year.

16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1414 of 2017 is