The High Court · 2025

Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent : - - - The Court delivered the following Judgment : 1l i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.219 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated O4.lO.2Ol7 in S.C.No.395 of 2016, on the fiie of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 3O2, 382 and 356 rlw. 75 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the record.

3. The Police laid charge sheet against the respondents/accused for the above said offences mainly on the ground that accused had snatched the chain weighing 3% tulas of gold of the defacto complainant's mother while they were proceeding on a motor cycle. Due to the said impact of snatching while being mobile on the bike, the deceased Sumithra fell down from the bike and died while undergoing treatment. The incident happened on 17.OZ.2OlS. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested I 1 on 16.1i.2015 i-e., 4 months after the incident. The Test Identification Parade was conducted on 07.05 .2016 t.e., S% months after his arrest. In fact, the case of the complainant is that a stranger snatched the chain while P.W.1 was going with the deceased on his motor cycle. Since the identity of the person was on the basis of Test Identilication Parade which was conducted nearly 9rZ months a-fter the incident, learned Sessions Judge found that said identification in the facts of the case could not be believed. Further, apart from the Test Identification Parade, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

4. karned Sessions Judge also found that recovery of M.O.l also could not be believed, for the reason of not conducting Test Identihcation Parade of the property in accordance with Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

5. Apart from the said identification after 9 72 months and the doubtful identity of gold chain of the deceased, learned Sessions Judge found that prosecution failed to prove any other circumstance to substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt. I I I .)

6. In cases ol acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Shannq o. State (Gooernment of NCT of Delhi) and anotherr, 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 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 Ghureg La.l v, State of Uttar PradesW 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: "7O. In the light oJ the aboue, the High CourT and other appellate Courts should foltotu the Luell-settled pinciples crystallized bg number of Judgments if tt is going to ouemtle or otheru.tise disturb the tial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouerntle or othenpise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial ond compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arbe in uhtch tlLe appetlate court uould tnue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to ' (2022) I Supreme Court Cases 536 'z1ZOOa1 fO Supreme Court Cases 450 I 1 discard the tial court's decision. "Very substantiaL and compelling reasons" exbt when: palpablg u.trong: i) The tial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is ii) The triol court's decision uas ba-sed on an elToneous uieut of lau; mis carriag e of justice" ; iii) The trial court's judgment b likelg to result in "graue iu) The entire approach of the tial courl in deating u.tith the euidence u.tas patentlg illegal; u) The tial court's judgment uLa.s manifestlg unjust and unrea.sonable; ui) The tial court hns ignored the euidence or mi"sread th-e mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exltaustive. 2. The appellate court must alutays giue proper weight and consideration o the findings of the tial court. 3. If two reasonable uieu.ts can be reached_ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conuictton _the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule tn fauour of tte accused."

8. The two circumstances relied on by the prosecution i.e., the identity of accused being established by Test Identification Parade after 9Y" months of incident ,and recovery of M.O. |cannot form basis to lind accused guilty. Within seconds, the chain \vas snatched and the person snatching the chain fled. In the said circumstarices, identity alter 9/z months becomes doubtful. Not conducting Test Identification Parade of gold chain/M.O.1 also does not establish that M.O.1 belonged to deceased. Further, there is a contradiction in the evidence of witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W.9 regarding time of the incident and vehicle on which P.W. 1 traveled along with his deceased mother. P.W. 1 stated that I I I I 5 incident happened at 2:3O p.m. whereas P.W.9 stated that incident happened at 3:30 p.m. Further, description of the vehicle on which the deceased was travelling also differs from P.W. 1 to P.W.g. 9 . There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused. 1O. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K, SAILESHI D.EPUTY REGISTRAR SE{]TION OFFICER l

1. The lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] I

3. Two CD Copies @; "1\ I HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.219 of 2018 S q o $t $n x6 Ct t oGC F * DISMISSING THE CRLA {