Telangana High Court
S.Ramadevi vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 4 March, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.936 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant, who is the wife of
deceased, aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.11.2017, in
S.C.No.105 of 2015, on the file of VI Additional District Judge,
Mahbubabad, questioning the acquittal of the
respondent/accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for State.
3. The appellant is the wife of the deceased, who was
examined as P.W.5 before the Court below.
4. The case of the prosecution is that accused burnt the
deceased on 31.10.2014, suspecting that the deceased was
having illegal affair with his wife. The deceased was taken to
the hospital and treated by P.W.1. According to P.W.1/Doctor,
the deceased was brought to the hospital with 90% burns on
31.10.2014, at 7 p.m. P.W.1 further stated that the deceased
informed him that some of deceased's friends poured petrol on
him and lit him on fire.
5. P.W.2 is the police Constable, who spoke about the
deceased being taken to the hospital in 108 Ambulance.
P.Ws.3 and 4 were cited as circumstantial witnesses. However,
they did not support the case of the prosecution and were
declared hostile.
6. P.W.5/Appellant is the wife of the deceased, who stated
that she was informed by others that her husband was
admitted in the hospital with burn injuries and he was burnt by
the accused. However, she was not an eye-witness to the
incident, and her evidence is hearsay.
7. P.Ws.6 and 7 are circumstantial witnesses, who turned
hostile, to the prosecution case.
8. P.W.8 was the only eye witness to the alleged incident,
however, he did not say anything against the accused, and was
treated hostile.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that, the information that was given to the Doctor/P.W.1 was
that the friends of the deceased burnt him. During the course
of investigation, it was revealed that the accused was the
person who burnt the deceased after pouring petrol on him.
Basing on the circumstantial evidence, the accused ought to
have been convicted.
10. The case is one of burning of the deceased by pouring
petrol on him. Though P.W.1 stated about the deceased being
burnt, however, there is no other evidence apart from the
information provided by the deceased. P.W.1 did not state that
the deceased had named anyone except stating that some of his
friends burnt him. The only evidence that is available is the
alleged confession of accused, but there are no seizures. The
said confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is
of no help to the prosecution's case to prove the case against
the appellant.
11. 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
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal.
12. 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.
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."
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
13. There are absolutely no grounds, much less any
compelling reasons, to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 04.03.2025
dv
