Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Syed Sayeed Hussain , Lamba Hussain , ... on 13 November, 2025

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1570 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal has been filed aggrieved by the

judgment passed by the learned VII Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in S.C.

No.860 of 2015, dated 16.05.2017, where under

respondent No.1/accused No.1 was acquitted for the

offences punishable under Sections 307, 379, 435 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section

25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and respondent

No.2/accused No.2 was acquitted for the offence under

Section 435 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State.

No representation on behalf of the respondents/accused

Nos.1 and 2 in the morning session and in the afternoon

session either physically or virtually.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on

14.11.2014 at 22-20 hours Sri Kancharla Sainath Reddy,

PC-4070 lodged a complaint in which he stated that on

14.11.2014 at 8-20 PM they saw a person moving on a

numberless PULSAR motor cycle near More Supermarket

side, Snehapuri Colony, wearing a helmet, and on

suspicion, he and LW2 B. Jagan Mohan, PC 5736 followed

him and passed on information to LW3 E.Prasad Reddy,

PC 4935. Immediately LW3 joined them and LW1 and

LW2 waylaid accused No.1 by stopping numberless

motorcycle and when tried to catch him, accused No.1

took out the knife and threatening LW1 and LW2 not to

approach accused No.1 and in the meantime LW3 caught

hold the accused No.1 from backside. But accused No.1

managed to release from LW3 and stabbed LW3 on his left

shoulder causing severe bleeding injury and accused No.1

took the Karizma motorcycle and fled away from the

scene. Accused Nos.1 and 2 took the stolen vehicle to an

isolated area beside Shiva Goshala, at the outskirts of

Palmakula Village and burnt away the stolen vehicle.

Basing on the said complaint, the present case was

registered for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC.

After completion of the investigation, the Investigating

Officer filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2

for the aforesaid offences.

4. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below,

PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 were

marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were

examined, however, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. The trial

Court after taking into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence on record and after hearing the

parties, acquitted respondents for the offences with which

they were charged.

5. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the State filed

the present Appeal.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that

the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1

and 2 for the aforesaid offences by producing the oral and

documentary evidence on record. The learned Assistant

Sessions Judge without properly appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record erroneously acquitted the

accused Nos.1 and 2. He further submitted that PW.3,

who is the injured person, specifically stated in his

evidence that when he tried to caught hold accused No.1

from back side, he hit him with knife on his left shoulder

and he fled away by taking Karizma motorcycle of PW.1.

In the absence of any contrary evidence, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.3

and acquitted the accused persons. The impugned

judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge

is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside.

Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be convicted

for the offences with which they were charged.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of

the impugned judgment, it reveals that basing upon the

complaint lodged by PW.1 dated 14.11.2014, the present

crime was registered. Even according to the allegations

made in the complaint, accused No.1 moving on a

numberless motorcycle and when LWs.1 and 2 tried to

stop him, he took the knife and threatened them and in

the meantime, LW.3 caught hold accused No.1 from back

side, but accused No.1 managed to release from LW.3 and

stabbed LW.3 on his left shoulder causing severe bleeding

injury and accused No.1 took the Karizma motorcycle of

PW.1 and fled away from the scene. Even according to

prosecution, the incident took place on 14.11.2014 and

accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended by PW.10 on

1.12.2014 i.e. nearly after one month. On behalf of

prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P10 were marked. On behalf of defence, Exs.D1 to D5

were marked. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after

evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on

record has come to conclusion that the police have not

seized the pulsar motorcycle from the scene. Admittedly,

even according to the evidence of PW.3, accused No.1 left

the pulsar motorcycle at the scene and left the scene on

Karizma motorcycle of PW.1. Even according to PW.1,

accused No.1 stabbed LW.3 and left the scene on Karizma

motorcycle and the Pulsar motorcycle was not seized by

the police. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge while

relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Bihar with Raj

Pal Sharma vs. State of Bihar 1 and C.Muniappan and

others vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2, specifically held that

the test identification parade is very important. In the

case on hand, PW.11 in his evidence has specifically

admitted that he has not conducted the test identification

parade to identify the suspect involved on the date of

offence.

1995 Supp(1) SCC 80

AIR 2010 SC 3718

8. Insofar as the other allegation levelled against

accused No.1 for the offence under Section 25(1)(A) of the

Arms Act is concerned, the prosecution has not taken any

prior sanction, as required under Section 39 of the Arms

Act to invoke Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act. Further

the learned Assistant Sessions Judge relied upon the

principle laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Ahmed Bin Salam and others vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh 3, wherein it was held that the sanction

under Section 39 of the Act to invoke the offence under

Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act is mandatory. The

learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly come to

conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to

connect the accused persons with this crime.

9. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

and another 4, 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

2013(2) ALD (Cri) 75 4 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

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.

10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 5, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring 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

5 (2008) 10 SCC 450

weight and consideration to 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."

11. In view of several discrepancies and the principles

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, this Court

is of the considered view that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the case against the accused

Nos.1 and 2 and the Court below has rightly acquitted the

accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J