In State of Raiasthan v. Narelh LRAm Naresh

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I 1, I I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CIRIMINAL APPEAL No.936 OF ZOLV JUDGMENlT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice KSurender) This criminal appeal is frled by State aggrieved by the judgment dated 06. 10.2010 in S.C.No.7 of 2008, on tl:e file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, FAC V Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the respondents/accused Nos.l to 4 were acquitted lor the offences punishable under Sections 449, 3O2, 120-8 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ and Sections 25(1)(a) and27 of Arms Act.

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Zrppellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents/ accused. I

3. It is informed by learned Public Prosecutor that accused No.1 died.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2006 at l1:0O p.m., PWI (wife of the deceased) frled a complaint at P.S. Karimnagar Rural Police Station stating that on 14.11.2006 at O9:15 p.m., when she along with her 2 KS,J & JAK,J crla 9 201"1 husband, children and nephew namely P.Raghunatha Reddy (P\M.2) were present in the house, one person knocked at the gate and called her husband. PW.2 went to the gate, enquired with the person and informed the deceased. Then PW. 1 husbald went near the gate followed by her. The person at the gate ta-lked about a land issue and all of a sudden, shot at her husband. He then rushed out where another person was on motorcycle and both of them went au/ay on motor cycle. Immediately, she shifted her husband to Shivaramakrishna Hospital, with the help of neighbours and then to Government hospital, Karimnagar, where the doctor declared her husband as dead. For the past three years, there were quarrels between her husband and one M. Prabhakar Reddy (accused No.3) in respect of a land at Railway Station area in Karimnagar. TWo months prior to the incident, a panchayath was held, in which her husband refused to settle. Ever since, accused No.3 was threatening to kill her husband. Accused No.3 having conspired with others murdered her husband. The person who shot her husband had visited her house earlier to purchase a house site.

5. On the basis of the complaint Iiled by PlM1, the Police went to the scene of oflence and conducted scene of offence / J KS,J & JAK,J crla 936 2017 panchanammra. The Police also went to the hospital and conducted inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the body was sent for post rnortem examination. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

6. The motive for committing murder of the deceased according to prosecution was that accused No.3 bore grudge against the deceased since he was an obstacle in real estate transactions and accused No.3 decided to eliminate the deceased on account of deceased objecting to his legitimate share. Accused No.2 was also a victim in the halds of the deceased. Accordingly, accused Nos. I to 4 conspired to kill the deceased. Accused No.4 purchased a country made fire arm and hanried it to accused No.l to fire at the deceased. Accordingly, on the night of 14.11.2006, accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house of the deceased and while accused No.2 remained outside the house on a motorcycle, accused No. 1 entered in the, front yard and shot at the deceased at close range and ran away along with accused No.2.

7. The accused were arrested and a test parade was conducted, where PWI identified accused Nos. 1 and 2. The conspiracy in between accused Nos. 1 to 4 was on the basis of 4 KS,J & JAK,J $Ia 936 201'7 alleged confession of accused Nos.2 and 3 before the Police. None of the independent witnesses stated about any grudge that accused Nos.2 and 3 had against the deceased. No documents were filed to show any kind of real estate transactions in which the deceased had become a hurdle to accused Nos.2 and 3.

8. PWl stated that while accused No.2 was standing outside the compound wali of the house, accused No.l entered, called the deceased ald shot at him. The presence of accused No.2 at the scene does not make him co- conspirator or a person with common object to commit the murder of the deceased, unless evidence is adduced by the prosecution about accused No.2's involvement either by provocation or conspiracy to cornmit the murder of the deceased. On account of his presence, it cannot be said that he is a co-conspirator to the murder, unless proven by circumstances.

9. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate Court cal only be in compelling circumstances. The Honble ) KS,J & JAK,J CIla 936 201'1 I Supreme Corrrt in Pulicherla Nagaraiu Alias .Nagaraia Reddg a. State of Andhra Pradesht held as follows: "1:t. It is now well settled that ttre power of tl.e High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. It can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting tl.e evidence rejected by the trial court or rejectrng the evidence accepted by the trial court. However, if the High Court decided to depart from the conclusions reached by the tria-l court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based arrd state the reasons as to why it hncls the conclusions leading to the acquitta.l, unacceptable. It should a.lso bear in mind tJlat (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is forti[red by the hndings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to beneflt of any dor:.bt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of exarnning the demeanour of the witnesses. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel t}re doubl raised, and reject the reasons given by the trial court."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu u. State of Keralaz held as follows:

12. In State of Raiasthan v. Narelh @ LRAm Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 3681, the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that an "order of acquittal should not be Iightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towarcls the accused." ' (2006) 11 scc 444 2 crt.A.No.1o47o9, dated 11.08.2010 ; J I t 6 KS,J & JAK,J ctla 936 ml7

13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. [(2OO9) 4 SCC 27 t], this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances includes: i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled lega,l position; ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice ; iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court; vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.

11. Accused No.1 who shot at the deceased died. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, though he was present at the scene, nothing was elicited during the course of trial to prove that accused No.2 had acknowledge about the act of accused No.l and with prior concert, both accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the house of deceased to commit the murder. 7 KS,J & JAK,J ctla 936 2017 i :

12. When two ,riews are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be considered as per the well settled legal position.

13. There a-l-e no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and the appeal fails.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeat is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// DEPUsff L?I3Ii{iF ,/ \ SECTION OFFICER orre n ce s U n d e r s c s & s rs ( p oA ) Hi,",t::lil, ffi : i: ?;,# 9g"""1;! rrl3,.ii The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar police Station, Karimnagar District. L-':r3"";J:.t?3,!#f"" Prosecutor, Hish court ror the state or reransana One CC to Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 8P To, 2 3

4. ( 6 kam/sh I I l HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.936 of 2017 \t1P ol "\r t i 3 2Elri ?ti5 c * -l . frA: i-ir DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL (t { e{-r,r-l-