The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri M. Achuta Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional public prosecutor The Court delivered the foltowing JUDGMENT: No. 1 ro 5 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. AI{IL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.669 0F 2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/P'W'2 and P.W.3/victims, aggrieved by the judgment dated l4'O3'2017 in S.C.No.624 of 2013, on the frle of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Mahbubnagar, acquitting the accused/ A-1 to A-5 for the offences under Sections 12O-B, 3O2, 4O4' 2Ol and 109 of IPC.

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

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.2012, the villagers of Kishan Nagar informed the Police about a dead body that was lying in the agricultural land of one Ashok Yadav near Rameshwaram Road' P'W '22 who is the Inspector of Police along with his staff went there and inspected the scene. The' body was shifted to Communit5r Health Centre (CHC), Shadnagar and kept in the mortuary' Next day, i.e., on 23.O3.2012, P'W'1, who is the son-in-law of 2 the dece rsed., Iodged a complaint stating that his father_in_ law was m:.ssing. p.W. 1 identified the deceasecl was his father-in.iavr On the basis of the complaint filed by p.W. 1, crlme wai rt:gistered for the above said offences. Lruring the course o' in-izestigation, scene of offence panchnama was conducter I and blood stained earth was also taken. The vehicle tre [on61ing to the deceased and a celr phone ,"r,as seized at the sce 1e ,lf offence.

4. While investigation was in progress. p_W 19 apprehenc ed .A,- 1. There was surveillance on A- 1 sr.rspecting that he ',v, rs the reason for the death of the deceased. A_l was interr rgat.ed and at his instance, police came to know about comclir:rty of other accused Nos.2 to 4. other accused were arres,ecl and at the instance of A-3 and A_4, M.Os.1 to 3, one goLd chain and two gold rings were seized and the said M.Os. wert icir:ntified as that of the deceased. The seizure was from I lannapuram Finance, where the rings and chain were pledgtrd. During further course of investigation, blood stained axe hzurdle, stick, pair of gloves, towel etc. r.rsed for the commissior. of offence were also seized. The call details of the phone rLumbers of the accused were sought from the service provider by the Investigating Officer. On anatysis of , the data collected, there was constant communication amongst the accused. On the basis of the circumstantial evidence that was collected during the course of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A-1 to A-5' According to investigation, at the instance A- 1 ' all the accused A-2 to A-5 conspired to kill the deceased' A-1 was holding grudge against the deceased' Accordingly ' A-2 to A-4 on 22.O6.2012 artacked the deceased and killed him at the instance of A- I .

5. l,earned Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accusedfortheabovesaidoffences.Havingconsideredthe evidenceofP.Wslto24,documentaryevidenceEx.P.lto Ex.P45, M.Os.l to 15 were marked on behalf of the to D-7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.D' 1 defence. l,earned Sessions Judge found that the case against the 6. appellants is circumstantial in nature ' The circumstances relied on by the prosecution were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The only basis for laying charge sheet against the accused is confession and conseqr'rent seizure of material objects. However, all the witnesses to the seizure of 4 material objects turned hostile to the prosecul,ion case. Further, lea:.ned Sessions Judge also found thar_ seizures were in f rct rioubtful on the basis of the contradictions that crept intc evirlence of independent panch witnesses.

7. Learne,C Sessions Judge found that other than filing telephone rec:ords of the accused, nothing was p laced on record by way of oral or documentary evidence tc) suggest that these accused came together and at the instance of A_1, A-2 to A-, killed the deceased. The material objects which were seizel at the scene and also at the behest of ,\_4 were not event sent to FSI,. The spade handle with w.[ich the deceased wasi allegedty killed cannot be takr:n into consideratjon on account of its mere se2ure and there being no forensic evr.<lence.

8. In ca ses of acquittal, the Hon,ble Supreme C)o1rra ., Raui Sho.nna u. State (Gooernment of NCT of Delhi) and anothef , , relcl that while dealing with an appeai against acquittal, t re appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly whr:n evidence on record has been analys<:d. The L (2022) B Supren re Court Cases 536 5 reasonisthatanorderofacquittaladdsuptothe 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' ln Ghureg Lal a' Storte of Ut:tar Pradesi-' the Hon'ble g. 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 7O' as follows: "70. appellate crystallize otherwise In the light of the aboue, the Higlt Court and other Courts should follout the utell-settled pinaples d by number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or disturb the tial court's acquittol: '

1. The appettate court mag onlg ouemtle or otheruise dktu;b tne tiit court's acElittLt i1 it no" "uery substantial and. compelling reasons" for doino so' A number of instances arise ln uhich the appellate court u.tould. haue "uery substantiat and competting reasons" to discard the tiol coutt's decbion' 'iery substantial ond competling reasons" exist u-then: i) in tiol court's conclusion with regard to the facts is iiirrn tial court's decision was based orl an errorleous trial court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue iu) T?e entire opproacn of tle tial court in deoling ruith the -iuigment was manifesttg unjust and palpably wrong: '-- uiew of laut; "** i|"il. miscaniage of iustice " : euidence ttas PatentlY illegal; """-"';-i;;-r;it unreasonoble; "oi,t'" ' (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 , I I I 6 vi) Tlrc trial court ho"s ignored_ the euid.ence or misread. the .euidence or has ignored. mateial d.ocuments like dging mate,ial decla ations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. ii)This l;.st is intended to be ilfustratiue, not exhausuue. ). 71rc appellate court. must ahaays giue proper ueight and c'tns;.deration o the fi.ndings of the fi;l c;urt. ). 11' tuto reasonable uiews can be reached o e that leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction tle High Court.;/ appellate courts must nlle in fauour of the o.is.d.,, 1 0. Hav ing gone through the record, the reasons given by the learr ed Sessions Judge are based on reoord and reasonablt. There are no compelling reasons to inter:fere with the findir gs ()f the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused 11 Acco rdingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUT'Y REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SsEcnoru oFFtcER The specia Sessions Judge-cum-Vfl Additionar District and sossions Judge, Mahabubna gar The S^tation Horrse officer, Shadnagar porice station, Mahboobnagar District Two CCs tc the Pubtic Prosecutor]Higt, Cor.tioiiAu Strt.-o; iE[ngi'n"-"t Hyderabad. [OU-t'l 9nu 99 to l;ri M Achuta Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies To, 1 I 3

4. 5 VH/gh HIGH COLIRT DATED: llt}ZtZOZs I t: \ I .\ \\ I ,// o- s1 r! o *..DESP: JUDGMENI' CRLA.No.669 of 2O1t DISMISSING THE APPEAL 1b