High Court · 2025

The State of A.P. rep by the Public Prosecutor' High Court of AP'' Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/ Petitioner AND Kammari Shankar, S/o'Poshaiah Manne R/o Thakalapalli Ouarters Adilabad District ...RESPONDENT/ Accused Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M' VIVEKANAND REDDY' ADDL PUBLIC Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO c APPEAL No.6O1 oF 2015 ORDE R: The State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal aggrieved by r_he judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Asifabad in S.C.No.73 of 2OO7, dated lB.tO.2OOZ, whereunder :he respondent/accused acquitted for the offences under Sections 323 and 3O7 of IpC. 2 The casr: of prosecution, briefly stated as under "The briei case of the prosecution, the complainalt, injured and accused iire residents of Tekkallapally village and they were known to each cther. One Amrutha was the daughter of senior paternal uncle of complainant and her marriage was settled wlth the accused. On the night of Z_11 1999 the complainant, Amrutha and accused went to the house of one Kodipe Bapu of Kothagudem who arranged Flarikatha on the death alniversary of his father and one Ganapathi Hanmanth Rao also went there to watch Harikatha and while Harillatha was going on Amrutha not shown any interest and asked comrlainant to go to house, then the complainant, Amrutha prepared _o go to house, then the accused suspected the complainant that he is intentionally taking Amrutha she would be wife arld beaten him with hands. Kodipe Bapu, Hanmanth Rao carne to his rescue. Amrutha, Accused and others left the place and carne to their houses. Kodipe Bapu who suspected further altercation if the complainant also went to his house, kept him at his house on that night. The injured being the mother of the complainaut came to know about the quarrel between the accused 2 andcomplainantatthehouseofKodipeBapualdintheearly hours she started' going in search of her son and when she reached Thumbam kunta cheru!'u' ttre accused who is coming in opposite direction, when the injured questioned the accused about her son and beating him The accused grew wild and picked up a stone and beaten with a stone on her back' as a result she fallen on the ground, then the accused took out an axe from his waist and hacked on the left shoulder and left side oI the neck of the injured' as a result she received injuries and fallen on the ground in that process she also lost her gold pusthe and the accused teft the place' The injured herself woke up with great difhculty and drink water in the tank and came to house and informed the incident to Bayakka' Rajaiah arld in the meanwhile the complainant also came there and they shifted her to Potice Station where the statement of the complainant was recorded Basing on which the ASI registered this caseandreferredtheinjuredtoGovernmentHospital'Asifabadfor treatment. Since the condition of the injured is serious a requisition was issued to the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer' Tandur who in turn recorded dying declaration of the injured and later the injured was referred to MGM Hospital' Warangal for better treatment Further the ASI recorded the statements of the witnesses and visited scene of offence and conducted Panchanama in the presence of Panch witnesses and found blood was fallen on the earth and green grass andalsotwobrokenbanglepieces'onegoldpustheandseizedthe blood stained earth, controlled earttr' a1l dour bangte pieces under cover of Panchanama in the presence of Panch witnesses' ln the meanwtrile the Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation, arrested accused on i5-11-1999 and recorded confession statement' on his confession he lead them to Thumbarn kunta Cherur, r gattu where he shown one stone used by him atld also produced the axe from the bushes' then the stone and axe was seized under cover of Panchanama in the presence of Panch witnesses and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand and also recorded statement of Kodipe Bapu and other witnessesandaftercoltectingmedicalcertifrcates!il"ljl1::h... against the accused " l I i I I I i I 3

3. Heard Mr. M. Vivekanand Reddy, learned Additionat public prosecutor. l{o representation on behalf of the respondent either in physical mode or virtual mode.

4. l,earne<l Additional public prosecutor submits that the respondent/accused has committed grave offence. the prosecution proved the car;e by examination of the pW_1 to pW_14 witnesses ard Exs.Pl to p [3 were marked. However, the learned Assistant Sessions .tuclge without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused. He further submits that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence of IrW_2 who had sustained injuries. The impugned judgment passr:d by the court berow is not contrary to raw and the same is iiable to be set aside and respondent/ accused to be punished.

5. Having c,tnsidered the submissions made by the Iearned Assistant publi<; prosecutor and after perusal of the judgment, it reveals that basing upon the complaint lodged by pW_ 1, Crime No.94 of 1999 was registered and the investigating ofhcer after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial First Cllss Magistrate, Asifabad, and the same was taken cognrzance uide p.R.C 20 of 2OOO, subsequently the case committed to ther Court of Assistant Session Judge, Asifabad. /// .,/ I l) 4

6. On behalf of the Prosecution' P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-13 were marked and M'Os'1 to 6 were also marked on behalf of the Prosecution It is not in dispute with regard to relatidnship between P W-1 7. to P.W-3 and accused P'W-1 is the complainant' P W-2' who is the \ injured, is mother of P W-l and P'W-3 is the cousin sister of P'W-l' whose marriage was settled with the accused- The case of the prosecution is that on 07'11'1999 in the night hours' P'Ws-1 and 2' accused, P.W. Nos 6 and 7 and other viilagers went to the house of L.W-6 for watching Harikatha on the death ceremonv of his father' Then there was a qtlarrel between P'W-l and accused and in the handsoftheaccused,P.W-2sustainedinjuries.Thelearned Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence of P'Ws-1 to 3 come to the conclusion that there is no mens rea irt tkre mind of the accused to kill P.W-2 and the ingredients under Sections 307 and 323 IPC are not attracted against him' .any produced

8. The record further reveais that the Prosecution has not evidence to. prove that P'W-2 sustained grievous learned injuries. P.W. Nos.9 and 10 were turned hostile' The Session Judge after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record rightly acquitted the respondent /accused holding that the prosecution has not produced the weapon and other material objects ."':.* 5 seized from the scene of offence, not accepted the evidence of p.W_2 on the grourtd that the prosecution suppressed the factum of seizure of the stonr: and the said material object was also not produced before the Court.

9. In cases o1-acquittal, the Hontrle Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Governmeat of I{CT of Delhif and anotherr, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to considr:r 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 arr 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 renrlering acquittal. 10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar pradeshz the Hontrle Supreme Courl after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principtes of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para ZO, as follows "7O. In rhe light of the above, t,.e High Court a,,d other appellate Courts should follow the well_settled prrnciples crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overmle or otherwise disturb the trial court,s acquittai: ' 1zozz1 s scc s:6 '(2008) 10 sCC 4so 6 1- The appellate court may only overmle or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doilg so' A number of ilstances arise in which [he appellate court would. have "very substantia'l and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision "Very substantial and comPelting reasons" exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion wittr regard to the facts is palpablY wrong: ii) The trial court's decision was based on art 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 igrrored 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. Tine appellate court must always give proper weight and consid.eration o the findings of the trial court'

3. If two reasonable views cal be reached- one that leads to High Courts/appeilate acquittal, the other to conviction courts must rule in favour of the accused'" -the i I 7 1 1. The reasons given by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge cannot be int:rfered since they are based on record and reasonable. Hence, this ,[)ourt does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned ju,Cgment dated 18.1O.2O07 passed by the learned Assistant Sessrions Judge.

12. Accordi.gly, the criminal Appear fired by the state fails and hereby dismiss;ed rS Miscella.eous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- K.SREE RA DEPUTY MA MURTHY REGISTRAR tr, t It I' \,i sEcTtoN oFFtcER //TRUE COPY// To l The Assistant s(-,ssions Judge, Adifabad, Adirabad Diskict. 2. The Judicial ,\4agristrate of First Class, Asifabad, Adilabad District. 3. The Station Hour;e Offic, olyo"*"".;:";"*5",",1.,,f "T:::f lllll"l;Ili:l":*:".*

5. Two CD Copies KUI,,PSL 1il 0[I 20ffi '. :/ HIGH COURT DATEO:28t08t2O25 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.60,r of 201S DISMISSING TTIE CRI. .APPEAL. 16[1 \u(