The High Court · 2025

Judgment

10.12.2025 Bctrvecn: '['hc Stare ol'Andhra Pradesh, rcllresentcd blz the Public Prosecutor, lligh Courr olA.l)., Hyderabad. AND [)asu I lali Kislrun Appellanl Responclent .ltJl)Gi\,il..N-t' r l'tr I ktn hle Sn Justice K Lokslntott) Heard Dr. S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Irublic Pxlseculor rltpearing for the appellant-Statc and Mr R. [)r'asharrth, lcarncd counsel for the respondent-accuseci 2 Fccling itggrieved and dissatisfied with thc Juclsrncnr dated i L0u.20 1 2 in S.C.No.543 of 2008 passed by the learneil lV Adclitional Scssions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal. State prcl'erred the pr.eseut appeal. Vide the alorcsaicl 2 .ludgment, learned tlial Court acquitted the respor dent-accused for the otl'enccs punishable undcr Sections 302. 307 and 363 o1'the Indian Pcnal Code, lti60 (fbr short 'lPC').

3. As per thc prosecutiou case, thc accust d killed the youuger son ol' PW.[, nanrcly. Mohd. Quiztr (hereinalter referred to ns 'the clcceascd') [r1, throwing r rn in water i.e.,Vaddi Cheruvu, Waransal. -l-ltet'c are disp rtes betwcen accused, PW I and t'W.4 rvitli rcsard to real-c:, rte busincss. According to the prosecution, accusecl, PW.I arr I PW.4 have entered into an agrccnlcnt o{'salc on l l . l2.l99tt r ith regard to a plot. PW.l arrd I)\\/..1 har"c pairl an arrrounI ol' i.s. 1,50,000/- t<l the accusccl torvartls advancc sulc cousiderat r u. Accused did not rcceivc the lralancc salc consideration and did not executc registclcd salc cleccl in luvoul ol' PWs.l urd 4. There were also disputes bctwceu accuscd ancl PWs. I and 4 r'vith regald to thc said agreelucut ol' salc. t(eeping tlie samc in tnind, accuscrl kidrrappccl lroth thc rninol sons t, PW.l, rvho arc aged about () anrl l l ycars rcspcctivcll,, an,1 thrcw thctn \ 1 3 into water and killcd the cleceased. pW.5, elder son of pW. l. escaped from thc watcr.

4. On receipt olthe said infonnation from pW.5, elder son of' PW. I, PW.l has loclgcd Ex.pl-complaint with police, Inthezargunj Police Station, Warangal. On receipt of thc said

cornplaint, Policc ha',,c registered Ex.pl0_FIR on 04. l0.l99r) at about 09.i0 A.M. lor the ofI'ences punishable under. Section -l6i ot'IPC. -l-hercafier. the Investigating Officer in thc saicl crinre has frlecl Ex.pll - alteration memo, dated 04.10.1999 stating tlrat t[.re dcad bocly of the dcceased was found floatirrg and the uccusecl killed thc cleceased by throwing him intcr water. -lherelorc, hc lras fllecl the said memo altering tlre sectio. .l'la*' lior, Secrio, 363 of Ipc to that of Sections 302, 307 and -16i of lPC. -5. During thc cc'rurse ol investigation, the Investigating Ol'ficer recordecl tlle statelltents ol'ltarents of the deceased as PWs. I ancl 2. P!V.-l is thc Village Revenue Officer, who infirlnrcd to the policc about the f'loating of the dead body of It,, 4 thc deceasecl on 04.10.1999 in betwccu 06.00 A.l I. and 07'00 A.M. on cor.uiug to kttow about the satne li'tl t.tt tlc villagers' PW.4, fl'iend of accused ar-rd PW.l , dcposct about the agreetnent lretr.veett PW. l. PW.4 aud accusctl l <l also with rcgard to the paynrent ol'Ils.1,50,000/- towards lart paymcnt of sale consideration. 6 The Investigating OI'liccr has rcctlrdecl thc I tatctreuts of PWs.6 and 7 to prove thc ttttltivc arrd that tltcrt: arc disputes between PWs.l, 4 and accttsecl. Httrvcver' btrllr ol- {llern clid not suppoft the prosccutiott atrd ttrrncd lrostilc l Ws.S and 9 are Panch Witnesscs. PW.l() is a busirlcss pcls()rr lorvcvcr, hc did not suppolt tlrc ltrosccutiotl attcl turrlcd lrostil. ['W. t t is a Xerox shop owncr artd lrc did not support llrt' trctttiou and turned hostilc. PW.ll is thc ou'llcr of tltc srt I cct car aud according to hirn, the sLrt.l.icct car was givcn to []t accused ou hire. PW.l3 is thc Sub-lrlsl)cctol ol' Policc. ul o I'cgistercd Ex.P.l0 FIR on rcceipt ol'original Ex.P. I cor rlrlaint fi'orn PW.l. PW.l4 is tlte Doctor-. u'ho cottductctl ar'rt'rsy rlver the ) 5 dead body of the deccascd. PW. l5 is the Invest.igal.ing Officer and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Prosecution has rnarked Exs.p. I to p.l3 and M.Os.l to 4 were exhibited.

1. On consideration of' tlre crrtire evidence both oral and documentary, r'irlc tho irtrpugnecl .ludgment dated 31.08.2012 in S.C.No.5-li ol 200ti, learnecl trial Courl acquitted the accused. Challcnging tlrt: said inrltugned Judgrnent, State has prelerrecl the present crirtrinal appcal

8. lt is relcr,ant [o uotc that on completion of investigation, the [nvcstigating Ofiicer lras laicl charge sheet in Crime No.176 o[' 1999 ol Inrhczargunj Policc Station, against the accused on 09. I 1.1999. Lcarnecl I Additionat Judiciat First Class Magistrate, Warangll, rrurnbcred the same as P.R.C.No.l oi2000. [-[ou,cvcr.. thc said file was missing at the cornmittal Court. Alicr obtainins rlccessary permission froni the lcarnccl District ancl Sessions .tudge, Warangal, learned I 6 Magistrate reconstructed thc rccord atrd comtnitt,r t P.R.C.No. I of 2000 on 0(r.l I .2008.

9. It is apt to note that, in paragraph No.9 ol't re intpugned .ludgment, thcrc is a spccitic finding that urissing rf thc bundle and reconstruction of the bundle alicl obtairrirr . pcltttissiott lrom thc leanred District and Sessions.ludge, \\1rr arrgal. irr tlte year 2008. There is a firrding that thc lcamcd trii I Court is o{' tlie considered view that somc pre.iuclicc woultl lc citttsed kl the accused due to rcconstruction ol- rccot'cl h, thc lcarrted cornrnittal Court without any noticc or knrlu |:clgc o[' thc accused. There is also a finding ol'llrc lcarncd triLI ('oult that in the reconstructed record, tlrc signalulcs ol-P\\ . ll lnd l5 Inr. estigating Officers are not thcre.

10. Learned trial Court furllrcr hcld that thc ac: rscrl ltas ttol takcu any objection or cxpressccl his gricvancc b: orc lianring o1-the charges. I{e l.ras raisecl ob.jectious at the bclrr crl stage I t. As discussed supra,PW .5, clder' lrlother ol't rc clcceasecl, is the cye u,itness. In his ch ic l'-exarr ination, hc urs tlcl.lc'rsctl I 7 about the entire incident. According to him, on 03.10.1999 PW.5 and his deceased brother lelt the house at 06.30 P.M. to attend Namaaz. Aftcr attending thc Namaaz, both of them returned back to home. When they reached to tlre shop of Mr.M.Nagaiah on the ntaitt road, tltc accused canre to them and informed thcrn that his tather is sitting in the bakery near MGM Hospital. Thcrelbrc, accusccl took both o1 them from the said bakcry in an auto to MCM I lospital. Ile asked thetn to get down frorn the auto near MGM ltospital and boarded them in a car. Accused t<lok l-rollr ol tlteni to Hyderabad. After that they visited Tank BLrnd. BLrdha Statuc, Airport, etc. Hc was taken back to Warangal. I Ic turther statcd that accused enquired with PW.5 that as to rvhetltcr PW.5 and his deceascd brother knew swimtttirtg. Hc ctrsurccl that both of thcm did not know swimming. Accused recluestctl botlt of thetn to remove their shirts ancl PW.5 intbrnrcd tltc accusecl that lre was feeling fear. However, accused insisLed [)W.-5 to remove clothes stating that nol"hirrg is going to happe rl. Then, accused removed his shirt antl thc shirt ol tlrc cleceased by tbrce B

12. PW.-5 lurther deposed that rvhen he we; standirrg. the accuscd has gone towards to his back and witli I n iutcntion kr courrnit rnurder, he pushed hinr into the water- r l'the Lank by using lbrcc. After falling in the watcr, pW.5 sr: rtcci shouting 'Bacltao Bachao'and while he was str.uggling irr lhe u.ater.. lte heard a souncl of talling something in tlrc rvat,: of tarrk. Ilc also hcard the sounds of his deceased broth: as .Mrnrna Munna'. Allcr struggling for somc tirne irr thc u tcr. hc could catch a Gancsh idol in the water and by cauglr holcling rhc idol, lrc sat lor some time and hc was l-cclinL tlillicultv in breathing. A{ier corning out of thc said watcl.. rc {btrnd his youngcr brothcr is rnissing. Hc startcd shouting li r his hr.<ltlrcr 'Quizzal Quitzar'. He could not lind his yorrr qcr brtrthcr Then, hc wollt to his house and informed the srrr L incitlcrrt [o h is tather l-1. During his cross-exarnination, pW.5 r ateuol.icall_r, aclu.rittcd that after 19 or'20 days olthc incicicrrt. I ls slatc,ler( r.r,as rccordecl by the police before a Magistratc. z\r rbout 07.0o \ ( 9 P.M., l.re has gone to MGM l-tospital. He did not see the dead body of his younger brother. At about 09.00 or 09.30 A.M. his father has taken him to Inthezargunj Police Station. While he was in MGM Hospital lor taking trcatlnetlt, during afternoon, the police came to hirn ancl recorded his statcrnent. Earlier to

03.10.1999, along with PW. l, hc wcn[ to Hyclcrabad lbr two or three times. During holiclays', lris father uscd to take their entire family to Hyderabad. Further, PW.5 adrnitted that it would take five minutes [o rcach Mr.M.Nagaiah shop on the main road by walk. Along with hinr, his brotltcr ancl scveral others offered prayers in tlre Mas.licl and carrrc out of the Masjid. He did not rerneurbcr rvhether hc had statcd or not in his statement to the lnvesLigating Olliccr about thc stopping of that car near Tara Hotel ancl thc accused keep tlrc handlc o1'the car with him by rernoving it. At tlrc timc ol' rccording his statement by the police, he rvas undcr krt ol'f'ear. I{e also could not identity the make o[ tlre car. IIe was stutlying in the 6'r' class at the relevant point ol'time. Hc further atlnrittcd that on I 10 {lrat day it was first tirne hc boarded a car and ei r icr [o that he ncvcr boar<led a car

14. PWs.(r and 7 did not suppoft the prosecuticr It is llrt to note that though PW.5 specilrr ally dcposcd thitt they ar.c sitting a.t lr4r.Nagaiah shop, prosclt !tio!) did rrot craminc thc said Mr.Nagaiah, owner of the sholt

16. As cliscussed .supru, PW.5 specifically sr lc(l that his \laLcnrcnt u,us rccordcd by the Police bcfolt, tlrc lcanrccl N4a!.ristratc. Everr the said statement was not trlctl tlv tltc prr5ccuI ie11 [re firrc the leamed trial Court. l-lr .r, lrave rr<rl crarnincd arry othcr pcrsons who camc out frorn c Nlasiid on conipleticln o I'the Narnaaz.

11. PW.4 deposed about the agreelnent betwecrr thc uccusccl, [)\\i.l ancl PW.4 r'egarding payrnent of Rs.l,-50,0t(,'- as per thc suitl lgrccnterrt. Alrout 4 or 5 months front th. agr.ceulcn( accused uscd [o insist thenr for payment ol'balrr rcc uurount Ilovvcvcr, he did not support the prosecution rr(l h"^ u,as \ 11 declarcd hostile. During cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that the copy of the agr.eernerlr is not with him and it is lying with pW. I . He has not verillccl about thc ownersl.rip and the title of the accused over the afbrcsaid land.

18. PW.1 specifically deposecl about the handing ovcr ol'the photostat copies of the agreelnent to tlre Invesri-uatirrg Ol'licer. Evcu then, the Investigating Officcr dicl not tilc copy ol' the same before the learned trial Court ancl tltc prosccution clicl not tnark the copy of the said agreemcnt l9 PW. l3 - Sub-Inspectorof Policc, rvlro r.egistcrccl f:r.t,.10 FIR on receipt of Ex.P.l cornplaint lionr pW.l . During cross_ examination, he categorically adrnittcd tlrat loose panch cltits, whiclr were shown to hirn, are not thc sa.tc ltanch cltits. rr lrich werc prepared at the tirne of seizurc ol MOs. I to 4. l_oose panch chits were prepared recently clue k) lost ol' original panch chits. Apart from exarniuing arrcl recorclinLl thc statentent of PW. 1, he has also exarnined ancl recc.rr.clcrl the 12 statclrcllts ol' I)Ws.2, 3 and 5 and he has er lrnined and rccordcd thc statctneltts of I'Ws.2 and 3 in betu'ct' 01.00 P M' and 02.(Xl P.M. while conducting thc inquest par chanaura otl thc clcacl bocl1, ot' the deccased. Further, on 0-l 10.1999. hc dispatchecl Ex.l).10 FII{ to the Court. He di-'not obtairr signaturc ol' thc ri' .fhcto conlplainant - PW.l irr the rclcvattt coluuru ol'Ex.Pl0 t'Ilt, which is meant lorthe si1.r taturc ol'tlic conrpla irtatit l0 PW ll fllcd Ex.P.tl alteration tnemo in lic Court orr

04.10.1999 at 0(r.30 I'}.M. During cross-exar rination, he aclnriltctl thut lrc rlicl not t'cmctnber the name i I thc policc constablc 1o ri'hotn he lorr'varded the same attc lte clid rtot kurrrv u'lten il ri'its reaclted and on what date it r t lchcd to tltc Court. llo lirrthcr admittcd that he has not ,; rllectcd arty docuutcttt pertaining to the land, wl-rich is said to re in disputc bel*'cctt PW I arld accuscd' I{e has not examin(l an}' llcrsoll rr'ho ol'lcrcd pravcr it't thc Masjid along witl PW.-5 anil dcccascd tirr knorving tltc t.tiovements of [)'J .5 arlcl thc 13 deceased. He did not examine any pel-son from the Tara Hotel or from MGM Hospital for knowing abour the alleged picking up ol' thc deceased and pW.5 by the accused. pWs. I ancl 5 together calne to the police station lor lodging coutplaint. PW.5 is no[ in a position to talk and he was urrdcr- shock and for that reason he was refened to MGM Hospital. Warangal. Along with PW.5, pW. I also went to the Hospital and pW. lj dicl not cxamine the person, who scribed Ex.p. I cornplaint. 2l . PW. l4 Doctor, who conducted autopsy ovcr the clead body ot'tlre deceased, found that the causc ol.thc deatlr *,as due to drowning.

22. PW.l5 - Investigating Officer, filed char.gc slrcct againsl thc accuscd on completion of investigation.

23. It is also apt to note that pW.3 _ Villagc Ru,enue Ofl-rcer, i' his chief-examination, specifically cleposccl tllzrt o. 04.t0.1999 in between 06.00 A.M. and 07.00 ,,\.lvl.. rhc villagels canrc [o him and infomred about thcir noticing the floating ot' the dead body of a srnall boy in the water o{. t4 Chinnawaddcpalli Cheruvu. Hc rnade velihcation r1'that news by going ncar to that tank and then informed t I the Police, Inthezarguni I)olice Statiorl, through phone. Hol rvct', during his cruss-cxarttittatiotr, he has categorlcally adrll ttcd that at about 07.00 A.M.. ltc has inlormcd the police 1l rrugh phorle abcul thc ttcr s. IIe clid not obscrvc that rvhat tirr e the police catre to tltat 1l lacc It is apl to tlote lhat crrctt according to Plv 5, hc along u,itlr his clcccrrsccl brt-,tltct cartte to Masiid at abrltt 06 30 P'M on 03.10.1()99 li)t'altcrtcling Natrlaaz. Accused L rok them to MGM Ilospital. liottt tht:re to Hyderabad rr rd lrack to Waraugal. ntotc particularly, Chirlnawaddcpalli r- heruvu' The clistarrcc bctrvcctt Warangal and I{yderabad is abc'r t 150 K'Ms Even as pcr. l'\V.5. accuscd took them to Tank ti rrrd, Buddha Statue, Airirtrll. ctc.. irt Hyclcrabad and back t I Warangal, whicir rvi!l lahc ltrur hours to roach Hyderabad.'[ rerefore' the quesLion ol' lloating ol' the <icad body of the cleceased in bctrvccn 06.()0 z\.M. and 07.00 A.M. on 0'.10 1999 as \ \ 15 deposed by PW.3 would not arise. The deposition ol pWs.3 and 5 is not inspiring confidence.

25. Though, accor-ding to the prosecution, tlre rnotivc is tltat [here arc land disputes between pW.l, pW.4 and accusccl ancl that they have enl.ered into an agreement on 2l . 12.199g. pW.l lras paicl a, arnount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accuscd torvards ad'ance sale co,sidc'ation. They have not coilectccr origiuar .r- col'rv trl'agreetnent ol'sale, dated 2l .l2.l9gg. Thus. rlrev lailcd [o [)r'ove thc mcltivc.

26. As cliscusscd .supra, the evidence of pW.-5 is rrot rnspiling con liclence ol thc Court.

27. It is also apt to note that cluring his examirration unclcr. Section 313 ol'Cr.P.C., accused specifically inlbr.rncd tltc Cou rt that he was talsely implicated in the prescnt casc. Orr consicleratio, ol the enti'e evidence, vielc the irrl.rurrrccl Judgurcnt datccl 31.08.2012, lear-ned trial Courr acquittccl tlrc accuscd_ 16

28. Therc is no dispute with rcgard to thc t cath of the deceased. It is scttlcd larv that howcver grave tht lf'fcnce uray be, prosccutiotr has to plovc thaL accuscd comttritcd the said offcnce beyond reasortatr [c douttt 29 In the prcsent casc. lttosccution lailed ttl p ove that thc accused colttrnittecl tltc tttut'clct' ttl' tltc deceasctl,v dl'orvning him in water

30. As discusscd.sttTrrrt. tltc casc [rundle was nislllaced in the Conrnrittal Coult. 'fhcr.clitrc. thc Comnrit , l Court has obtained perutissiott ll1)rll thc learncd Di'rict Judge, Warangal, lbr rcconsltucti<rtt ol'tlrc bundle withoL putting any noticc or knou,lcdgc ol'tlic accusccl. Therclbrc. i ttlok twelve ( I 2) ycars [o rccot'd tlrc cvitlcttcc o l- thc llrosecr-r i rtr rvitnesses floru tltc datc ol'rrtcitlcrrt.

31. Thc stalerlrcll[ ol'l'W.-5 uncler Scction l(t4 o'(]r.l).C., was recolded by thc lcalnccl Magistlatc, but tltc satllc vas not filed. t7

32. Ex.Pl I alteration rnerno filed by pW. 13 is contrary to thc deposition of PW.3. It is also apt to note that learned trial Courl comparcd the statemetrl of pW.5 with his statement recorclecl under Section 16l ol'Cr.p.C. It has held that on closc scrrrtiny ol' pW.5 evidence_in_chief is rnade with his statenlent lccorded under Section l6l of Cr.p.C., it is appearing that he has uracle lnany exaggerations and ernbellish rnonts- I-rc rras also given certain examples o[ the said c.utradictio,s. Fi.ally, lca.ned trial couft held that ther.e arc lra.y ur:rjor i,rprovclnents, omissions and contradictio,s in thc clcpositiorr ol pW.-5 ancl it is appearing by seeing his evidc,cc tlrat he clep.sccl n*lre trran what is actually required to deposc and it can be said that he was made to step into the rvituess bor alier a thorough tutoring.

33. Lcarrrcd trial Court lurtlter observed that it is ver.y surplising to see in the cross-exarnination, pW.5 failed to give thc nuntbcr and the make olthe car in which the accused said to havc bcerr taken hint ancl his brother to Hyderabad after the 1B alleged kidnap. They travclled in thc car along I ith accused for twelvc ltours. PW.5 was studying in 6'r' :lass at (he relevant point of tirne. Though it is not possiblc t I letnetnber the vehiclc nuttrbet'. lie shtluld have itllorured th: ;lolice with regard to makc of the car, but hc has not inlorrncti ltc satnc'

34. On consideration of thc saitl aspccts, leartt': I tlial Coutt gave a specilrc t-rnding rhat PW.5 is not an iltitcrat: llcrson aud he was studying irt 6'i'class on tlrc date ol'the allt lcd incident ar-rd his evidencc is not insllirirrg tlrc con(idcuce o llte (lolttl'

35. As discusscd sttT;r'rt. lhc Irlvcstigating ( rl'liccr I'rled charge-shect against accusccl Iirr thc o l't'cnce undct Scction 3(r3 of IPC. Section 363 ol-lPC clcals r.r'ith kiclnap antl it is rcle"'ant to extract hcrcunder:

363. I'urrishmcn( lor ki<lrtapping - Whocr i kitlnalls any llorsoll lronr Inclia ot lj ottr lar.r'f ul guardia r lrip. shall be pturished with intprisort nrcrt t ol cither des': illtitllt fbr a tcnr.t 'rvhich uray cxtcttd to scvcll ycars, atttl slrall also bc liahlc to finc. Thus, the plosccutiort hits to prc)ve I c afbresaid ingred ients 1 \ 19

36. To prove that the accused committed kidnap of pW.5 and the deceased, the prosecution has to prove the said ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecutio, utterly laired to prove the ingredients of Section 363 of IPC 37 . lt is also apt to norc tlrat. r,i/e judgment dated 17 .03.2022 in Crl.A.No. I ll7 ol' 2014, this Couft rernanded the matter back to tlic lcarucd tr.ial Courl by setting aside the impugned Judgrnent for disposal of thc said S.C.No.543 of 200g, in acco'da.ce il,ith larv, *,ithi. a period of three (03) months on the ground that thc coucir-rsions r.caclieil by the learned trial Court in acquitting tlie accuseci basing on the inconsistencies/omiss ions in the evidence of pW.5 in his examinatic.-i,-ch ic[' ,rade befbre [he courl and the statements rnade by hirn undcr Secrion l6t ol'Cr.p.C. before the poiice, are patcntly errotleous. The trial Court is required to evaluate the substantial evidencc on r.ecord to an ive at a conclusion. Such exercise lras not beeu conclucted in this case. With the 20 said findlng, this Court remanded back the rlt rtter to the lean.red trial Court by setting aside the impugned . r dglnent'

38. Accused approached the Hon'ble Supt'en r Cotu't and Virle order dated 02.04.2025 in Crl.A.No.173-1 r l'2025, the Apex Court rernanded the matter to tilis Courl u'il r a direction to decide the present appeal on merits. Apex ( ourt lurlhcr held that whether the lindings an'ived at by tlL' trial Coutl acquitting the accused, basecl on the testinr rics of the witnesses, were pewerse or uot, is u'hat thc Iligl Court itsclf ought considered after exanlining and di;;ussing thc testimonies of the prosecution witncsses

39. Vide Judgnent datccl 19.04-2024 in Crl r No.985 of 2010 in the case of Babu Salrcbagouda Rudru14,t tdur v. State of Karnataka. thc Apex Court discussed the scr pe ol appeal and the manner in whiclt thc High Court lras t I dccide thc appeal filed by the State challenging the Jui[1] nenl- of'trial Court acquitting the accused \ 2t

40. [n its Judgmenr darcd 29.07.2015 in Crl.A.Nos. 1247 and 1248 of 2012 in V.K.Mishra t,. State of []rturakhund, the Apex Court in paragraph No. l6 categorically held that Couft cannot suo moto make use ol staternents to the police not proved and ask questions with ref-ererce to tliem whicrr are inconsistenl. with the testintony ol the witness in the Courl. 4L. The Apex Courl in Muralidhar Alias Gidda v. State of I(arnatakar held as [bllows: -RLrssell "10. Lord Russcll in Sheo S,,r,arup[l], highliglirecl the approach ot'the IIiqh Cour.t as an appellatc iourt hcaring tlrc appeal alainst actiuittal_ t_ord said. "... the IIigh C'oLrrt sltoLrkl arrd r.rill alu,ays give utrtpcl wcigltl arttl rrrrrsidcrliton lrr suilt ,nart".i ,,, (l) thc vier.vs oi the tr-ial Jurlge us to thc credibilitv of tie lvihresses; (2) tho prcsLrnrptiorr oi irrnoccncc i,r fauour of the accused, a presult)lttiol cortailrlv not weakcned hy tlre lact thal lrc h:rs bcerr let;triuetl ar his Irial: { i) lhc light of the acoused to rhc bcnetit of any doubt; anrl (4) tho..slowncss of an appollatc court in disturbing'a finding of fact arrivecl at b1, a .ludge rvlio had the advantage of socing lhe u,itnesscs.'. The opinion of the Lord Russell has been lirllorvctl over-the year.s. I I . As early as in It),_<1. this Courr in Surajpal Singh[2] rvhile dealing rvirh rhc pou,ers ol. the tiigt, Court in an appeal against acquittal under Scctir]n { I 7 ol tlrc ( rirrriual l,roecrltrrc ( .,,.ic ,,llselli ctl- ".........-llle Higll ( (,It.t lrrs Irrll porrcr t() rc\icw lllc cvitlcncc u1:ron rvlrich thc urdcr- of' acquittal .,vas foundcd, br( ir is cqually rvell setrlcd that tire ' lzor+1 : scc u.to 22 prcsurnptiotl of i nocence of the accused is h t her i"info.ced by his acquittal by the trial court, anl the linrlings of the triat court which had the advanta 3 of seeiugfthe rvitnesses and hearing thcir cvidencc cr .bc revcrsed only lor very substantial and coup'l tng reasons." a1: rcal orIiu cv 5l . IC. l' r a1i I 2. The approach of the appellatc court in thc against acquittal has been dealt rvidr by this C T-ulsi.am Kanu[3], Madan Mohau singh[4], Atl Alier Raja Kliirna[6], Balbir Singh[7]' Aganvat[S], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[ l0]' S Sahablao Bobade[i i 1, Lekira Yadav[i2], Karanfi3], Bisl.ran Singtr[la], LItrtt t Jadavbhaifl5], K. Gopal Reddy[16]' Tota Singt Rarr-r Kurnar[18], Maclan Lal[19], Samhasiiar Bhagwau singh[21], Harijana 'Ihirupala[2l ' Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sartlay ThaknLr ancl Chandrappat26]. It is not rloccssary to dca thcse cases individuatly. Suftice it to say tl"at this ( has cousistently held that in dealing rlith aI agaiust acquittal, the appellate coufl lrust bca[ 1r tlie following: (i) Therc is presutnptiot.t of intxrccr' lhrottr ol an accused pcrsott rnd suclt prcsutttlr i strcngtl.rened by the ordcr oF acquittal passctl i fuvour by thc trial court, (ii) Thc accuscd pcr; cntitled to the bclrefit of reasouable doubt rvlrcrr i rvith thc rnerit of thc appeal agair.st actluittrL TItotrgh. lltc power oI the appellrrtc courl itt cott 't' thc rpperls agaillst acquiltrl arc as crlcn:ir..' polvcrs in appeals against convictious but thc ap1' tourt is generally loath in disturbing the tinding c rccoldcd by the trial coult. lt is so bccause tl i courl had an advantage of sccing thc det.neanor ' witr.rcsses. If the trral court takes a rcasonablc r i thc lbcts of the case, intcrfercuce by the appcllall ."vith the judgnent of acquittal is not justilicd l- thc couclusions reachcd by thc trial cout1 are ilrr wrorlg or based on erroneous vierv ol the [ar'v or i conclusiotts are allowcd to staud, they arc lil'' losult iu grave injustice, the roluctaucc oll thc I thc appollate coutl in interfering r'vith such concl is {ully justified, and (iv) Mcrely bccause thc a1 1 coutt oI rc-appreciatiou aud rc-ovaluatiotr r cvidcnce is inclincd to take a difl-ercnt intcrference with thc judgnent of acquittal r hai r7l. r0l. ('. I l-il \\ ltll ( rur[ ,ctls n ind ;c irt rn is ,rt is lcl ls (iir) )rUlt s lts :llatc 't'acl \\' () t' JOUrI rlcs s. r rbll s rtclt Ir.to ut ol' s ions c llat c 'the riclr- i not -)? justificd il the v.icw taken by lhc lrial courl is a Possible vrcw. I he cvcnly balarrced viervs ol.the cvidence must not result in the interference by thc appc ate court in the judgment of the trial court.,,

42. In the light of the aforesaid princiltte, coming to the fhcts of tlre present case and as discussed ster(t, tllet e arc many lapses on behalf of the pr.osecution. At the cost of repetition, the Investigating Officer. did not exarnine the shop owner i.e., Mr.M.Nagaiah, during lhe coursc ol.irtvcstigation. He has not examined any person, who canre out li.om Masjid alter. completion of Namaaz and persons at MGi\4 tJospital.

43. The prosecution failed ro llle thc colty ol.exal.nination of PW.5 recorded under Section I64 of. Cr..tr.C. Ex.p.l I alteration Memo filed by pW. l3 is contlary to the deposition of PW.5. The entire version of tho prosecution that the body of the deceased was floatcd in betlvcen 0(r.00 A.M. and 07.00 A.M. on 04.10.1999 as deposed by pW.-5, pW.3 is highly improbable and suspicious. Even as pcr I)W.5, thcy came out of Masjid on 03.10.1999 at 06.j0 A.M. ancj zrccusecl took rhem to MCM Hospital and thcrc fi.ont kt t-tyder-abad ancl back to -/ 24 Walangal. Thcrefbre, the question of floating t re body cu 04.10. 1999 lretrvecn 06.00 A.M. and 07'00 A'M as deposed by PW.3 is highlY imProbable'

44. As discussed supra, it is settled principle ol larv that horvcvct grar. c thc oft-ence may be, the proset' titln has to prove thc guilt of the accused beyond reasonable i lubt' I f tu'o vicrvs arc possihle, the view which is in favour ttr lltc accuscd' l1n5 [q ltc corrsidered. [n the present case, prosecrr iou failed to provc thc guilt ol'the accused for committing I'h': saicl oll'cncc bcr,'ontl lcasonablc doubt. 45 On conside ration of the aforesaid aspe( t ; only' r'rr1c in.rpugnecl .iutlglt'rertt, learned trial Court acquittcl the accuscd' It is a rcasotrccl and well founded judgment' Pro:;' cution lailcd t() lnakc ()ut any case to interfere with the impugn :d Juclgmetlt' \ \ 4(t. Accordlngly, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. SD/- V KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, t 1 2 3 4 DUPS The lV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal. (With records) Two CCs to the Assistant Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Mr. R. Prashanth, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies L a, y_- HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1117 of 2O14 rJ :.. 'i i]tr S T4 0^\r 3 rl 1,r zd16 !; J.'.!t .Aa'l' -,ar,rr,.1!a/ DISMISSING THE APPEAL \?K' v\ \tt