Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana Rep By Pp., vs Gopanpally Venkateshwar Reddy, Konnur ... on 27 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.983 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved
by the judgment passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.286 of 2016, dated 25.04.2017,
whereunder the respondent was acquitted for the offences
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'IPC').
2. When this matter is taken up for consideration, it was
brought to the notice of this Court that, aggrieved by the very same
judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused had
approached this Court and filed Crl.A.No.507 of 2017 insofar as it
related to his conviction for the offence under Section 323 of the
IPC, wherein he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. This Court partly allowed the said criminal appeal,
confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under
Section 323 of the IPC and modifying the sentence imposed by the
trial Court by directing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
The accused was directed to deposit the said fine amount before the
trial Court within two weeks from the date of the order, and the
trial Court was directed to pay the amount to PWs.1 and 2 at
Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The
other fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court shall
remain the same.
3. Mr.Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the
respondent/accused, submitted that the respondent/accused has
complied with the condition imposed by this Court in
Crl.A.No.507 of 2017, dated 15.03.2023.
4. It is relevant to mention that neither the State nor the
respondent/accused had brought to the notice of this Court the
pendency of the present criminal appeal filed by the State.
5. In view of the same, the present appeal was not clubbed with
Crl.A.No.507 of 2017, filed by the respondent/accused. However,
the judgment passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.507 of 2017, dated
15.03.2023, has become final. The learned Sessions Judge, after
evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution, rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the offences under Section 307 of the IPC
against the respondent/accused.
6. 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
appellant 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, the
appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of
the trial court rendering acquittal.
7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 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:
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 45
"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."
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge.
9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 27.11.2025
Vsl
