High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of ' Judicature at Hyderabad. ...1 5t RESPONDENT/STATE

2. Kodamalla Parushuram, S/o. Veeraswamy, Aged about 38 years, Occ:Spray Painting Work Rl/o.Gollacheda Village, Dornakal Mandal, presentiy residing at Near Holy Angels School, Mahabubabad Town, Mahabubabad District, Erstwhile Warangal District) ...2Nd RESPONDENT/ACCUSED Counsel forthe Appellant: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI J. GOVARDHAN REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT !&:&' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.936 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant, who is the wife of deceased, aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.71 .2017, in S.C.No. 105 of 2015, on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Mahbubabad, questioning the acquittal of respondent/ accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learncd Additional Public Prosecutor for State.

3. The appellant is the wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.5 before the Court below.

4. The case of the prosecution is that accused burnt the deceased on 31.1O.2O14, suspecting that the deceased was having illegal affair with his wife. The deceased was taken to the hospital and treated by P.W.1. According to P.W.1/Doctor, the deceased was brought to the hospital with 9001, burns on

31.IO.2014, al 7 p.m. P.W. 1 further stated that the deceased 2 informed him that some of deceased's friends poured petrol on him and lit him on fire.

5. P.W.2 is the police Constable, who spoke about the deceased being taken to the hospital in 1OB Ambulance' P.Ws.3 and 4 were cited as circumstantial witnesses. However, they did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

6. P.W.5/Appellant is the wife of the deceased, who stated that she was informed by others that her husband was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries and he was burnt by the accused. However, she was not an eye-witness to the incident, and her evidence is hearsay.

7. P.Ws.6 and 7 are circumstantial witnesses, who turned hostile, (o the Prosecution case.

8. P.W.S was the only eye witness to the alleged incident, however, he did not say anything against the accused, and was treated hostile. g. karned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the information that was given to the Doctor/P.W. 1 was that the friends of the deceased burnt him. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused was the 3 person who burnt the deceased after pouring petrol on him' Basing on the circumstantial evidence, the accused ought to have been convicted.

10. The case is one of burning of the deceased by pouring petrol on him. Though P.W.1 stated about the deceased being , burnt, however, there is no other evidence apart from the information provided by the deceased' P.W.1 did not state that the d.eceased had named anyone except stating that some of his friends burnt him. The only evidence that is available is the alleged confession of accused, but there are no seizures The said confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is of no help to the prosecution's case to prove the case against the appellant.

11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Raui Shcrma a. State (Gouernrnent 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 t 120221 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

12. In Ghureg Lql o. 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 paraTO, as follows: "70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follottL the utell-settled pnnciples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouerrule or othentise disturb the tial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouern e or othenaise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial ond compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances aise in uthich the appellate court utould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the tial court's decision. 'Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist u-then: i) The tial court's conclusion ulth regard to the facts is ii) The tial court's decision uas based on an erroneous uletu palpably utrong: of latu; iii) The tial court's judgment is likely to result in "graue miscarriage of justice" ; iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing utith the e uide nce ua s. patentlg ille g al; u) The tial court's judgment LL)as mantfestlg unytst and unreasonable; ui) The tial court has ignored the euidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dging declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellote court must olu.tags giue proper uteight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If ttuo reasonable uieuts can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ appellate cou rts must rule in fauour of the accused." '12008; 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 ;.t5;{: 5

13. There are absolutely no grounds, much less any compelling reasons, to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Vl Additional District Judge, Mahabubabad' (with records if any) z. the station House officer, Mihabubabad Police station, Mahabubabad Town.

3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad[OUT]

4. One CC to Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri J.Govardhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Plp/DL Yt' HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.936 of 2018 ,l: .','l'.1I e- v o 31 Il'fl 2[25 t g0 'r--:lpr\I c\r DISMISSING THE APPEAL ^(o/ b ' Yt{, ^(9<' (\t'*