The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., vs Rakshale Babu Rao , Bapu Rao And 3 Others,
2025 Latest Caselaw 3544 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3544 Tel
Judgement Date : 28 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., vs Rakshale Babu Rao , Bapu Rao And 3 Others, on 28 March, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1062 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2012 is filed by the

appellant-State, challenging the judgment dated 21.06.2007

passed in SC/ST S.C.No.26 of 2006 by the learned Special

Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA)

Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy.

2. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State, and

Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant

lodged a Telugu written complaint against the

respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4 on 22.08.2005

4. In the said complaint, the complainant stated that

there were two incidents, firstly, on 21.08.2005, accused

No.2 allegedly beat the complainant's daughter, and again,

on the next day, i.e., on 22.08.2005, all the accused attacked the complainant and others at his house and abused them

using filthy language.

5. On the basis of the complaint filed, Police filed a

chargesheet against the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4.

6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the

prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were examined, Exs.P1 to P6, and

M.O.1 were marked. On the other hand, no witnesses were

examined on behalf of the defence, but Ex.D1 was marked,

which is a contradiction in the evidence of PW.5.

7. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to

4, mainly on the ground that the entire version given by

PW.1 in his chief-examination was a complete omission in

the earlier statement (Ex.P1-complaint) given to the Police.

8. The improvement made by PW.1 was denied during his

cross-examination, however, it was proved through the

evidence of the Investigating Officer.

9. The learned Sessions Judge found that accused No.2

abusing PW.5 in the name of her caste was an omission on

the second date of the incident, and the narration that

accused No.2 had beaten PW.1's daughter at the site of the

house was also an omission.

10. The learned Sessions Judge further found that the

manner in which the incident happened, such as,

questioning PW.1, following them, and attacking them, were

all omissions in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement and the

Ex.P1-complaint.

11. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, who are all family

members of one family, and their narration in Court being an

improvement from the earlier statement, their improved

version in Court cannot be relied on to convict the accused.

12. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is

based on the record.

13. 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 analyzed.

The reason is that, an order of acquittal adds up to the

presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus,

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the

order of the trial Court rendering acquittal.

14. 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."

15. The witnesses, PWs.1 to 6, have given an improved

version before the trial Court during their

cross-examination. As rightly found by the learned Sessions

Judge, the improved version in Court cannot serve as a basis

to find the accused guilty. The version given in Court is

entirely different from what was earlier stated in Ex.P1.

There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding

of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused.

16. Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2012 is accordingly

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

dismissed.