Telangana High Court
State Of Telangana, Rep By Pp, High Court ... vs Kavali Shekar A2 Jadcherla M And 4 Otrs., on 30 January, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1041 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.12.2013
in S.C.No.440 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar, acquitting the respondents
/accused for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 r/w. 149
of IPC.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and
Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents/accused.
3. The respondents/accused were arrayed as A-2 to A-6.
P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She lodged a complaint with
the Police on 13.08.2011 stating that on 06.08.2011, A-1 to A-6
entered into her house and assaulted the deceased
indiscriminately in the presence of her daughter/P.W.2. The
scrotal sack was swollen, for which reason he was taken to
hospital on 08.08.2011. While undergoing treatment, the
deceased died on 13.08.2011 and on the same day, the
complaint was filed.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered the
crime and also arrested A-1 to A-6. At their instance,
recoveries were affected which are M.O.1/steel kadiyam and
M.O.2/two sticks.
5. Learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and
marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os.1 and 2 are placed on record.
The accused examined D.W.1/Dr.S.Ramachandra Reddy in
their defense. During the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 3,
Exs. D.1 to D.5 were marked. Ex.D.6 is the summary report of
SVS Hospital where the deceased was treated by D.W.1.
6. Learned Sessions Judge found that the version of P.Ws.1
and 2 cannot be believed since it is contrary to the
circumstances placed on record by the prosecution regarding
death of the deceased. Further, learned Sessions Judge also
discussed the reasons for disbelieving the only eye-witness
P.W.2 and found that she was tutored to speak against the
accused.
7. P.W.8/post mortem Doctor who stated that the cause of
death of the deceased was septicaemic shock due to gangrene of
the scrotum which is called Fourniers Gangrene.
8. D.W.1/Doctor was not even cross examined by the Public
Prosecutor who stated that on 08.08.2011, the deceased was
taken to the hospital with full scrotal enemy, foul smelling
discharge and patient was totally pulseless. He was given
antibiotics. According to the history under Ex.D.6, the
deceased was suffering with swelling of scrotal region for the
past 15 days and also with fever since one week. Thereafter, he
died while undergoing treatment.
9. The learned Sessions Judge found that the undisputed
testimony of P.W.8/post mortem Doctor and D.W.1/Doctor who
treated the deceased, goes to show that deceased did not die of
any injuries caused by A-1 to A-6 on 06.08.2011. The deceased
was joined in the hospital on 08.08.2011 and according to the
history, the deceased was suffering with swelling of scrotal
region for the past 15 days and also with fever since one week.
10. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
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.
11. 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 expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
12. The version of eye witness is contrary to the medical
evidence as rightly discussed by the learned Sessions Judge.
There are absolutely no grounds, much less any compelling
reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the
learned Sessions Judge.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 30.01.2025
dv
