The High Court · 2025

THE }ION'OURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HICNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KTIMAR CRLMINAL APPEAL No.1O9 OF 2018 JUDGMEN T: Qrcr Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. This a ppeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2(tl7 in Sp1.S.C.No.55 of 2014, on the file of Special Sessions Judge-Cum-VII Additional District &, Sessions Judge, Mal Lbu trnagar, acquitting the respondents / ar:cused for the offence,; ur,der Sections 302, and 379 r/w. '34 of IPC and Section 3(2'(v) c,f SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. Heard S:'i Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the record.

3. On 2).Oe .2012, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a c( 'mp .aint stating that his son who was u'orking as operator-cu m-:ashier in Bharath Petrol Bunk of Narva village was foun<l dead in the evening hours of 19.06.2072. P.W. 1 went there rnd found that the body of the deceased .'r,'as behind the petrol bunk and there were several injuries on the body.

4. The c ime was registered under Section 302 of IPC. The Inspector/I.W, t5 went to the scene of offence, conducted scene i 2 of offence panchnama in the presence of p.W. 11. The incriminating material found at the scene was seized. Several witnesses were examined on the said date. Again on 21.06.2012, P.W. 15 examined P.Ws.7 and 8. p.Ws.7 and 8 expr6ssed suspicion against A-1 and A-2, since A-1 and A-2 earlier worked in the petrol bunk and they were removed by P.W.6/Manager. Accused suspected that their removal from the petrol bunk was on account of the deceased. The accused were apprehended on 26.08.2072 and pursuance to their confession, cash of Rs.43,500/- was seized. During investigation, it found that Rs.45,OOO/- was stolen from the petrol bunk. After recording the confession and effecting the seizure of the amount, investigation was completed and charge sheet was iaid against the accused.

5. Learned Sessions Judge examined P.Ws.l to 16 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P.26 on behalf of the prosecution. The material objects 1 to 7 were also placed on record.

6. l,earned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants on the following grounds: (i) Crucial evidence is that of P.Ws.6, P.Ws.7 and 8 expressed suspicion and cahnot form basis to convict the accused. 7 and 8. suspicion 3 (ii) I'.W.2 stated that on the day of incident, hr: has collecte I tL e amount from the petrol bunk arou nd 5 pm and they usually maintain cash balance of Rs.7,ClC 0/ . However, Rs.43,500/- was seized from accuser [, rr,hich cannot be believed. No eviden:e is placecl on .:ecord to show that the said amount was collecte C by selling petrol after P.W.2 collected the amounl s. "he evidence of last seen'by P.W.7 and F'.W.8 (iii) cannot be trelieved since it is a weak piece of evidence. (i") "here is a delay in lodging the FIR. Though the incidenI happened in the night around 9:30 p.m., the compla nt lodged next day. "/as (v) lf ar all the accused attacked the deceased in a brutal mrurner, their wearing apparel would have blood s-ains. However wearing apparel of A-2 wa,s not seized zld there is no explanation regarding the same. "hough shirt of A- 1 was sent to FSL, no blood ("i) stains rrere found on his shirt. (vii) "he reason of removal of accused from the petrol t unl.: was tampering of petrol vending macl nes and mi sallrropriation of amou.nt of Rs.24,O0O/-, but the sa.ir I ta.rnpering was not proved by the prosecution. (viii) I'.Ws;.13 and 14, who are witnesses to the confess ion of accused contradicted themselves a,bout 4 the place of confession and their evidence cannot be believed. (ix) The place where the incident had taken place was by the side of the road but no one witnessed the incident. The delay in lodging the complaint and the time of death is also doubtful. (x) The call details of the accused phones were also not collected. The said call data would have substantiated communication in between them and their location.

7. l,earned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is recovery of Rs.43,5OO/- from the accused which is not explained. It can only be attributed to the offence committed by them.

8. The said argument cannot be considered. Mere recovery of said amount has no bearing in the background of p.W.6 admitting that he had collected entire amount from the bunk and only Rs.7,OOO/- was left. When no proof is placed by the prosecution that there was sale of petrol on the said day and an amount of Rs.45,OOO/- was collected, the recovery of Rs.43,5O0/- from the accused is ofno consequence. 5 g. Furthe r, k:arned Sessions Judge dismissed the last seen theory sincr' it was not reliable and the delay in lodging the complaint was r.ot exPlained.

10. In cas':s of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raui Shqnna a State (Gooentment of NCT of De'lhi) and anothef , lrekl that while dealing with an appeat against acquittal, tt e altpellate court has to consider whethel the trial Court's vie'a carL be termed as a possible one, particulzrrly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason il; that an order of acc uittal adds up to the presumption of inn,rcence in favour of tlre zrccused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively skrw in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

11. lrt Gh.urelt Lal o. State of tlttar Prad,eslr-', the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled rrin:iples of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversin.g thr: order of acquittal, held at para 70, as lbllows: t I "7C Ir, the light of the oboue, the High Court anal other appellat< Oourts should follotu the uell-settled pi,zciples crystalliz ed Lg number of Judgments if it i.s going to ouerrule or othenris z disturb the tial court's acquittal: t 1zozz1 e Suprerne Clcurt Cases 536 ' (2008) 10 Supr,rme (ourt Cases 450 6 'palpablg u.trong:

1. The appellote court mag only ouemtle or othentise disturb the tial court's acquittat if it has .uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.. A number of instances arise in iohich th.e appellate court tttould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard. the tial court's decision. 'Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist u.then: i) The tial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts i,s . i, fhe tial court's decision utas based on an erroneous uieu.t of laut; . ii, TfLe tial court's judgment is liketg to result in .graue iu) The entire approach of the tial coutt in dealing utith the u) The tial court's judgment taas manifestly unjust and ui) TLrc tial court has ignored the euidence or misread. the matenal euidence or has ignored mateial documents tike dging declarations/ report of tlrc ballistic expert, etc. euidence uas patentlg illegal; mi s caning e of justice" ; unreasonable; uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court must aluaAs giue proper ueight and. consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If tu-to reasonable uieuts can be reached_ one that lead.s to acquitta| tLte ottter to conuiction _tte High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the accused."

12. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO E UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Sessions Judge cum Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. (with records, if any) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. 3. The Station House Officer, Narva Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at \ To, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies e HIGH COUFTT DATED:13102112025 /t l JUDGMENT' CRLA.No.109 of 2018 DISMISSINIS OF THE CRIMINAL I\PI'EAL f CD / il- ,.) _:- -h O1 APq ZM t -1 l'l sPircru- -<:_-:_--:=,=, -: -r/ --// \. \ 9i\>t oa il >// ,/