Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., High Court, ... vs Abdul Shakeel, Karimnagar And 3 Others on 7 January, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.936 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

This criminal appeal is filed by State aggrieved by the

judgment dated 06.10.2010 in S.C.No.7 of 2008, on the file of

I Addl. Sessions Judge, FAC V Addl. Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar, wherein the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4

were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections

449, 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC') and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of Arms Act.

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents/

accused.

3. It is informed by learned Public Prosecutor that accused

No.1 died.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on

14.11.2006 at 11:00 p.m., PW1 (wife of the deceased) filed a

complaint at P.S. Karimnagar Rural Police Station stating

that on 14.11.2006 at 09:15 p.m., when she along with her

KS,J & JAK,J crla_936_2017

husband, children and nephew namely P.Raghunatha Reddy

(PW.2) were present in the house, one person knocked at the

gate and called her husband. PW.2 went to the gate, enquired

with the person and informed the deceased. Then PW.1

husband went near the gate followed by her. The person at

the gate talked about a land issue and all of a sudden, shot

at her husband. He then rushed out where another person

was on motorcycle and both of them went away on motor

cycle. Immediately, she shifted her husband to

Shivaramakrishna Hospital, with the help of neighbours and

then to Government hospital, Karimnagar, where the doctor

declared her husband as dead. For the past three years,

there were quarrels between her husband and one

M.Prabhakar Reddy (accused No.3) in respect of a land at

Railway Station area in Karimnagar. Two months prior to the

incident, a panchayath was held, in which her husband

refused to settle. Ever since, accused No.3 was threatening to

kill her husband. Accused No.3 having conspired with others

murdered her husband. The person who shot her husband

had visited her house earlier to purchase a house site.

5. On the basis of the complaint filed by PW1, the Police

went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence

KS,J & JAK,J crla_936_2017

panchanamma. The Police also went to the hospital and

conducted inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the body was sent

for post mortem examination. After concluding the

investigation, charge sheet was filed.

6. The motive for committing murder of the deceased

according to prosecution was that accused No.3 bore grudge

against the deceased since he was an obstacle in real estate

transactions and accused No.3 decided to eliminate the

deceased on account of deceased objecting to his legitimate

share. Accused No.2 was also a victim in the hands of the

deceased. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired to kill

the deceased. Accused No.4 purchased a country made fire

arm and handed it to accused No.1 to fire at the deceased.

Accordingly, on the night of 14.11.2006, accused Nos.1 and 2

went to the house of the deceased and while accused No.2

remained outside the house on a motorcycle, accused No.1

entered in the front yard and shot at the deceased at close

range and ran away along with accused No.2.

7. The accused were arrested and a test parade was

conducted, where PW1 identified accused Nos.1 and 2. The

conspiracy in between accused Nos.1 to 4 was on the basis of

KS,J & JAK,J crla_936_2017

alleged confession of accused Nos.2 and 3 before the Police.

None of the independent witnesses stated about any grudge

that accused Nos.2 and 3 had against the deceased. No

documents were filed to show any kind of real estate

transactions in which the deceased had become a hurdle to

accused Nos.2 and 3.

8. PW1 stated that while accused No.2 was standing

outside the compound wall of the house, accused No.1

entered, called the deceased and shot at him. The presence

of accused No.2 at the scene does not make him co-

conspirator or a person with common object to commit the

murder of the deceased, unless evidence is adduced by the

prosecution about accused No.2's involvement either by

provocation or conspiracy to commit the murder of the

deceased. On account of his presence, it cannot be said that

he is a co-conspirator to the murder, unless proven by

circumstances.

9. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate

Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble

KS,J & JAK,J crla_936_2017

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."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu v. State of

Kerala 2 held as follows:

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."

(2006) 11 SCC 444

Crl.A.No.104/09, dated 11.08.2010

KS,J & JAK,J crla_936_2017

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.

11. Accused No.1 who shot at the deceased died. So far as

accused No.2 is concerned, though he was present at the

scene, nothing was elicited during the course of trial to prove

that accused No.2 had acknowledge about the act of accused

No.1 and with prior concert, both accused Nos.1 and 2 went

to the house of deceased to commit the murder.

KS,J & JAK,J crla_936_2017

12. When two views are possible, the view favourable to the

accused has to be considered as per the well settled legal

position.

13. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of

the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal fails.