In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme lourt in Ravi Sharma v. State

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREEN] VAS RAO - CR{MINAL APPEAL No .983 of 2 i-t7 JUDGMENT This Criminat Appeal has been frled by the li ate, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the IX Additional Distrir. and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.286 of 2016, dat.l 25.04.201j, whereunder the respondent was acquitted fbr the offences punishable under Section 307 ofthe Indian penal C rde, 1860 (for short'lPC')

2. When this matter is taken up for considc ation, it was brought to the notice of this Cour-t that, aggrieved b,, lhe very same judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, t]r, accused had approached this Court and filed Crl..A.No.507 of 201 7 insolar as it related to his conviction for the offence under Secr i rn 323 of the IPC, wherein he was sentenced to undergo simple mprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 ,C ( 0/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisor ment for one month. This Court partly allowed the said crr tinal appeal, confirming the conviction of the accused for the r ffence under 2 Section 323 of the IPC and modifying the sentence imposed by the tnal Court by directing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.10,0001. The accused was directed to deposit the said fine amount before the Lrial Court within two weeks from the date of the order, and the trial Court was directed to pay the amount to PWs.l and Z at Rs.5,0001 each. In default ofpayment ofthe fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The other fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- irnposed by the trial Court shall remain the same

3. Mr.Raja Gopallavan Tayi, Iearned 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 2011, dated I 5.03.2023.

4. It is relevant to mention that neither the State nor the respondent/accused had brought to the notice of this Court the pendencyofthe present criminal appeal filed by the State.

5. [n view of the same, the present appeal was not clubbed with Crl.A.No.5O7 of 2017, filed by the respondent/accused. However, the judgment passed by this Courr in Crl.A.No.507 of ZOLT, dated r' '/ d-" 3

15.03.2023, has become final. The leamed Sessicr s Judge, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence :r duced by the prosecution, rightly came to the conclusion that . c prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences under Sectior 107 ofthe IPC against the respondenVaccused

6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme lourt in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) tnd anothert, held that while dealing with an appeal agains, acquittal, the appellant Court has to consider whether the trial C:,rrt's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evirl .nce on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of a,: luittal adds up to the presumption ofinnocence in favour of the acr,, sed. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversir s the order of the trial court rendering acquittal 7 In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradeshz the H,t r'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarc i rg the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court i L reversing the order of acquittal, held atpara70, as follows: ' lzozzl t SuprheCourt Cases 536 lzoOS; tO Supreme Court Cases 45 2 4 "70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the u'ell-settled principles crystallzed by number of Judgnrcnts if it is gotng to overrule or olher-wise disturb the triql court's acouittal l. The appellute court ma) onlv ctverrule or otherwise disturb the trial courl's acqltittal if it hus "very substctntial and compelling reasons" -for doing so A number of instanccs urise in which the appellale courl would have "vet! substanlial anel compelling reasons" to discard lhe trial court's decision. " I/ery :ubskmtial and compelling reasons " exist when: i) The tial court's conclusiott ttith regard b lhe facts is palpably wrong: ii) The trial court's alet:i.\ion was based on an etroneous view of lav,; iii) The triul court's judgruent is likclv to rextlt in "prave miscarriage ofj ustice ", iv) The entire approach of the trictl court in dealing with the evidence was pd.lently illegal; v) The lriol court's judgment .'r'us manifestly nnjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has igrutred. the evidence or misreud the mateial evidence or has ignored tnateria! documents like dying declarations/report of the bollistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intende(l to be illa.\trdtive, not exhaustiye

2. The appellate coart must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the tial court-

3. lf two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conyiction the High Courts/dppellate courts must rule infavour of the accused. " 5

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court docs not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Judgme r of the learned Sessions Judge.

9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fail and is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if ar., shall stand closed Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU TII iPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER To, 1 2 ,

4. DLlSa The lX Additional District & Sessions Judge, v /anaparthy (With records) Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, lligh Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC.] Two CD Copies )ti. HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 ,a t tE SI4 C. o 2 i Jtt{ 2U6 t i ( PNTCitt " JUDGMENT CRLA.No.983 of 2017 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 1^ \:)/