Telangana High Court
State Of Telangana Rep By Pp., vs Jogi Veeraiah , Veeranna, Medak Dt., on 30 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1015 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The acquittal of the respondent/accused resulted in the State
questioning the said acquittal, by filing the present appeal.
2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
and perused the record.
3. The prosecution case is that PW.1 who is the son of the
deceased lodged complaint on 30.06.2013. According to the
complaint, his father left the house on the previous day in the
evening and did not return home. While searching, his father was
found in the fields of Sherikar Syed Sab (not examined). There were
injuries all over the body of the deceased and his leg was fractured.
When PWs.1, 3 and 4 enquired with the deceased as to how he
received injuries, the deceased stated that the appellant had caused
injuries to him. Initially, the complaint was lodged under Section 324
of the Indian Penal Code. After the death of the deceased, section of
law was altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Charge was framed under Section 302 of Indian Penal code.
The learned Sessions Judge, examined witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The
following circumstances were relied on by the prosecution to prove
its case:
"i) That the accused has a motive to kill the deceased as the
deceased abused the accused and insulted him before others on
29.06.2013 at 6.30 p.m.;
ii) That the accused was last-seen in the company of the deceased
while he was taking the deceased to the agricultural fields of Syed
Sab at about 10.00 P.M. on 29.06.2013;
iii) That the deceased was found lying with injuries in the
agricultural fields of Syed Sab and the deceased reported to PWs.1 to
4 that he was intoxicated and beaten by the accused;
iv) that the accused came to the house of PW.5 with blood stained
clothes at about 11.30 P.M. to engage his auto;
v) That the confession of the accused led to recovery of a stick used
in the commission of the offence and;
vi) That the injuries caused by the accused led to the death of the
deceased.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence on
record found that:
i) The last seen theory as stated by PWs.8 and 9 was not in proximity
to the time when the dead body was found;
ii) Since the time gap in between the last seen and the deceased
being found is vast, it would be impossible for the Courts to conclude
that it was the appellant only and none other who committed the
crime.
iii) PW.6 stated that he found the accused dragging the deceased
around 10.00 p.m. on 29.06.2013, however, the deceased was found
on the next day morning at 8.00 a.m. by PWs.1 to 4.
iv) The time gap is around 10 hours and the possibility of receiving
injuries accidentally or on account of someone else beating him,
cannot be ruled out.
v) Though the deceased was taken to the Police Station, his
statement was not recorded and the Investigating Officer explained
that the deceased was in unconscious condition to record his Dying
Declaration.
vi) No evidence was placed by the prosecution to prove that the
deceased was conscious on the date of incident and was in a fit
condition to give the oral statement to PWs.1 to 4.
vii) The alleged seizure of MO.7 which is a stick, did not contain any
blood stains. It was also not sent to FSL. The prosecution failed to
prove that there was any motive on the part of the appellant to
murder the deceased.
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 to be relatively slow in
reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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.
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."
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
8. Since there was a time gap of 10 hours, when the deceased and
appellant were last seen together and the body of the deceased being
found, there arises any amount of doubt on account of the time gap
that the accused was responsible for the injuries on the deceased.
The version of PWs.1, 3 and 4 that the deceased stated about the
appellant causing injuries cannot be believed since the Investigating
Officer stated that the deceased was in an unconscious state. The
prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence of any expert doctor to
suggest that the deceased was in a fit condition to give his statement
as correctly found by the learned Sessions Judge.
9. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on
record, reasonable and cannot be interfered with in this appeal
against acquittal.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 30.01.2025
tk
