The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Gounsel for the Respondent : . .. The Court delivered the following: 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.942 OF 2OL7 JUDGMENTi (per Hon'bte SiJustice K.Surender) 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.07.2014 in S.C.No.25 of 2013, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, acquitling the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional P. ublic Prosecutor for State and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

3. P.W. 1 is the husband of deceased No. 1 and father of deceased No.2. On 09.11.20i1at about 5 p.m.he went to the house and found Zareena/wife and Samad/son dead. He lodged a complaint, Ex.P. 1 on 1O. 1l.20ll at 7 p.m. In the complaint, P.W. 1 stated that his son/P.W.3 returned from school and found both the deceased dead. P.W.3 informed P.W. 1. In the complaint, P.W. 1 further stated that boy fell in the water tub and died. Depressed on account of boy's death, his wife hit herself against the wall and died. He does not suspect anybody for the deaths. The bodies were sent for post mortem examination. P.W.l5/Doctor opined the cause of death 2 of Zareena due to asphyxia due to strangulation. No external injuries were found on the body of the boy but 1OO ml of water was found in the stomach and froth was coming out from the mouth. Since the death of Zateena was homicidal, the Police altered Section of law to Section 3O2 of IPC during the course of investigation. The appellant was arrested and interrogated. During interrogation, it was alleged that the accused revealed that he attempted to kill wife of P.W. 1 urith PVC pipe. He committed theft of Rs.70,000/- from the house of P.W.1. From the police station, accused led the Investigating Offlier to P.W.8, from whom Rs.5,9OO/- was recovered and Rs.8,OOO/- from P.W.7, which were grven by the accused. Rs.10,5OO/- was recovered from one Sailu. Similarly, from P.W.9, Rs.7,500/- was recovered.

4. On the basis of recoveries made, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet stating that accused having coming to know about P.W. 1 receiving Rs.70,000/- after selling green grarn, he waited for an opportunity to steal it. In the absence of P.W. 1, accused entered into the house and committed murder of wife and son of P.W.1 and took away the amount.

5. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds: 3 l

1. P.W. 1 did not state anything in the complaint about receiving cash or that any theft was committed in his house. 2- Since no proof is shown to show that any amount was missing from the house of P.W. 1, the question of believing the version of theft does not arise. 3. P.W. I did not explain as to why his wife committed suicide according to his statement in the complaint. 4. Though P.W. 1 did not state about cash that was in his house, however, P.W.2, father of P.W. I was pressed into serrrice to speak about Rs.7O, OOO/- available in the house of P.W. 1. 5. Though hnger prints were lifted from the Almirah, however, they did not match with the accused. 6. The version given by P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 regarding the amount that was recovered cannot be believed. It cannot be said that the amount was paid by the accused to P.Ws.7 to 9. The Jeep, which was sought to be repaired by the accused was in a scrap condition and the evidence of P.Ws. 1O to 12 that they received money for repairing the Jeep cannot be believed. 7. P.Ws.4 and 5 stated that they saw the accused near the house in the Court, however they did not state the same at the earliest point of time when the j_l 4 dead bodies were found, nor did they state about the incident at the time of burial of the deceased.

6. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rcui Shanna o. State (Gouerflment of NCT of Delhi) and anothef, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly 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.

7. In Ghureg Lat a. State of Uttar Pradesh' the Hon'ble 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. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other oppellate Courts should foUow the uell settled principles crystallbed bg number of Jud.gments if it is going to ouemtle or otheruti-se disturb the trinl aurt's acquittal:

1. The appellate court mag only ouerntle or otherwi.se disturb the trinl aurt's acquiltal if it has "uery substantial and compellittg reasons" for doing so. I (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 ' 120081 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 7 5 A number of instanres arise in u-thbh the appellate court would haue "uery substantial and compelling reo.sons" to di.scard the trial court's decision. 'Very substantinl and compelling reasons" exist u-then: palpably u.trong: i) The tial court's conclusion u.tith regard to the facts is ii) The trio.l court's d.ecision u-.ras based on an erron-eotts uieu.t of law; iii) The trinl court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue mis carring e of ju,s tbe " ; iu) The entire approach of the trinl court in dealbq with the euid.ence u.ta^s pate ntlg illegal; u) The trial aurt's judgment was manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The trial court ha.s igtwred the euidence or misread the material euid.ence or has ignored- material documents like dying declaratinns/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court mu.st aluays gite proper unight and consi.d-eration o the findings of the trial courL

3. If tuo reasonable uieuts can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conubtion _tle High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the occtsed."

8. The reasons given by ttre learned Sessions Judge are based on record. There are no compelling reasons to differ with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR DE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I t To,

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (With records, if any) 2. The Inspector of Police, Bichkunda. 3. The Station House Officer, Jukkal Police Station, Nizamabad. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies DUghw HIGH COURT DATED:281O112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.942 oI 2O17 f1 rAS e fl6q [P C) \) d 3$ t nrc PA1 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL