The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODLA, ADDTTTONAL pUBLtC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.482 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K-Surender,t 1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 23. IO.2O|7 in S.C.No.233 of 2015, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 396, 302 and 307 rlw. 34 ol IPC.

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

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that P.W. 1 who is the defacto complainant went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint which is Ex.P. 1. In the said complaint, he narrated that some unknown culprits have committed the murder of three of the four family members. The father, rriother and the son who were injured, died. The surviving witness is P.W.7 who is the younger son of the deceased's parents. According to the version of the prosecution, five unknown persons entered into the house, beat inmates of the house resulting in 2 their death. P.W.7 was present in the house when the incident took place and was injured. 4 . The Investigating Officer arrested A-7 who was the accused in some other crime and during the course of her interrogation; she confessed that she along with others committed the present crime. On the basis of the said confession, all the accused were identified, who are 7 in numbei. Out of seven, A-1 to A-3, 4,-6 and A-7 were prosecuted. A-4 and A-5 were shown absconding.

5. The Police also marked M.Os.l to 10 which are jewelry, watch etc., which were allegedly subjected to theft from the house of the deceased.

6. karned Sessions Judge acquitted the acctrsed mainly on the ground that the solitar5r eye witness/P.W.7 who was injured in the incident identified the accused on the basis of photographs shown to him by the Police and a-lso Police asked him to identiff the accused in the Court. P.W.7 in his cross examination stated as follows: "It i.s true that I haue ui,sited Cherlopalli jail utith Polbe to identify the accused about lt/z gear after the offence. It is true I u-ns shown some photos by the Polbe offrcials prior to mA entering the jai. It i.s true I did not recognize the 3 culpits in the joil. The witness ad"ds I could. not id entifg them due to mA mental status. It i_s tnte that police of Basar showed me the accused outside the Court to identifg them in the Court"

7. karned Sessions Judge found that identification of the accused by P.W.7 cannot be believed since he had identifieii them at the instance of Police.

8. karned Sessions Judge further found that these accused were earlier identifred as accused in severa-l other cases and thereaJter these accused arrested in the present case. The recovery cannot be believed since the witnesses did not identift the seized property.

9. Having gone through the record, the main witness P.W.7's evidence cannot be believed for the reason of police showing photographs and also showing the accused in the Court before trial.

10. In cases of acquittal, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Raui Shannrr u. State (Gouemment of NCT of Delhi) and. anothef, held that while dealing w.ith an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly t (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 A 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.

11. ln Ghureg Lal a. Sta,te of Uttar Pradesh'the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to severa-l Judgments regarding the settied principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 7O, as follows: '70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the uell-settLed pinciples cry stalli.z.ed by number of Judgments if it i,s gotng to ouemtle or otherutise dbturb the trial court's acquittat

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouemtle or otherui^se dbturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances ari.se in uhbh the appellate court utouLd. haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's deci.sian. "Very substantial and compelling reason s" exist when: palpably wrong: i) The trirtl court's conclusian with regard to the facts i-s ii) The trio.l court's decision wos ba-sed on an erroneous iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "graue uieu of lau.t; mis carriag e of jus tice " ; iu) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the euid-ence uas patently illegal; u) The trinl court's judgment was monifestlg unjust and unreasonable; t (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 I 5 ui) The tiat court has ignored the eui.dence or misre'ad the mateial euidence or has ignored materiol documents like dying declarotions / report of the balli-stic expert' etc' uii)Thi,s hst is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue' 2. The appellate court must always giue proper uLeight and consideration o the findings of the triol court'

3. If tu.o reasonable uiettts can be reached- one that leads High Courts/ appellate to acquiital, the other to conuiction -the courts must rule in fauour of the accused'" L2. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the the learned Sessions .ludge, acquitting the findings of accused.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. SRINIVAS PUI-Y REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To 1. 2. 3. 4. The Principal Sessions Jud ge at Adilabad. (wi The Judicial First C lass Magistrate, Bhainsa , Adi labad District. The Station House Officer , Basar Police Station, Adilabad District. Two CCs to Addl. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at l-lyderabad (OUT) cords )

5. Two CD Copies kul/plp w \ HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ) JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.482 of 2018 \{t ,1G L. (t ,J I 2s APf 2[25 C ..} t OESpATC, DISMISST.NIG'II IE C]IiL,APPEA t, @