The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana' rep. by The Public Prosecutor' High Court at Hyderabad' ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND 1 2 3 4 Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kavali Shekar S/o Shankaraiah, Age ?4^.years' LiaOlnAipw village of Jadcherla Mandal (A-2) Kavali lVlallanna, S/o. Chandraiah,. 99? ^?8 LiiOinO"prt village of Jadcherla Mandal (A-3) KavaliKurmaiah@Kurmanna,S/o'Pentaiah,Age23years,Private ffiftG, il;"Koth':rpriliViii;'ge bt kJrra"r'"rla Mand5l R R Dislrict (A-4) Kavali Ramulu, S/o. Shankaraiah, ?59 ?1 tilorno"pr uittage of Jadcherla trilandal (A-5) years, Occ Mason, R/o years, Occ Painter, R/o

5. Kavali Chandraiah' S/o. Dasaiah, age 54 years, Occ Agriculture' R/o UddandaPur village of Jadcherla lvlandal. (4-6) (The case against A-1 is abated as he died) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla' Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Pottigari Sridhar Reddy The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: -Sr'- 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE IiIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. AIIIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. lo4t oF 20L7 JUDGMEIII i (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. The Iitate: is aggrieved by the judgment drrted 30. 12.2OI3 in S.C.No.,t4O of 2OI2, on the file of IV Additiona. Sessions Judge (F"f C), Mahabubnagar, acquitting tlLe re spondents /accused frrr ttLe offence under Sections 14g ar.d.3O2 r/w. 149 of IPC. 2' Hearci learned Additional public prosecut.r ror State and Sri P.Srilh:rr Reddy, learned counsel [or respondentl r/accused.

3. The r, rspc,ndents/accused were arrayed rls A-.2 to A_6. P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased. She lodged a comptaint with the Police crL 111.08.2011 stating that on 06.08.2)11, _a,_1 to A,_6 entered in _o her house and assaulted the deceased indiscrirnina teiv in the presence of her daughter/p.V/.2. The scrotal sar:k was swollen, for which reason he rvas taken to hospital on 0U 08.2011. While undergoing lreatment, the deceased rli:d on 13.0g.2011 and on the slme rlay, fhs complaint rvr .s fijed. z 4 On the basis of the complaint, the Potice registered the crime ald aLso arrested A- 1 to A-6' At their instance' recoveries were affected which are M'O'l/steel kadiyam and M.O.2/two sticks.

5. l,earned Sessions Judge examined PWs'1 to 12 and markedExs.P'ltoP.23andM.os.land2areplacedonrecord. The accused examined D'W'1/Dr'sRamachandra Reddy in their defense. During the cross examination of P'Ws' 1 and 3' Exs. D.1 to D.5 were marked' Ex'D'6 is the summary report of SVS Hospital where the deceased was treated by D'W' 1'

6. Learned Sessions Judge found that the version of P'Ws'1 and 2 cannot be believed since it is contrary to the circumstances placed on record by the prosecution regarding death of the deieased' Further, learned Sessions Judge also discussed the reasons for disbelieving the onlY eYe-witness to speak against the P.W.2 and found that she was tutored accused.

7. P.W.8/post mortem Doctor who stated that the cause of death of the d.eceased was septicaemic shock due to gangrene of the scrotum which is called Fourniers Gangrene' 3

8. D.W l/[roctor was not even cross examir_ed b1 the public Prosecutor wLro stated that on 08.0g.2O11, the der:eased was taken to he hospital with fulI scrotal enemy, for.tl smelling discharge and patient was totally pulseless. He was given antibiotics According to the history under E:<.D.6, the deceased r.ras suffering with sweiling of scrote_i region for the past 15 dalr5 s'14 also with fever since one week. Thereafter, he died whib rnd,rrgoing treatment. 9 . The 1 :arrLed Sessions Judge found that the u ndisputed testimony cf P 'tr/.8/post mortem Doctor and D.\v. 1/Doctor who treated the der:,:ased, goes to show that deceased did not die of any injuries calrsed by A-1 to 4-6 on 06.08.2011. The deceased was joinecl n the hospital on 0g.0g.2o11 and according to the deceased was suffering with swe. ling of scrotal history, the region for the peLst 15 days ald also with fever since one week. 10. In casr:s of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Court in Raui Sharma u, State (Government of NCT o.F Delhi) and. anothef, teld that while dealing with an e.ppeal against acquittal, th : ap,pellate court has to consider wt.ether the trial Court's vierv can be termed as a possible one, particula rly when evidence orr record has been analysed. The reas,on is that an L (2022) B Suprem( : Cout Cases 536 4 order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence rn 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 Lq.l a. State of llttar Pradesi-' the Hon'trle 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 pata 7O' as follows: "7O. ln the lighr of the aboue' ttg High Court and other appellate Courts slauld fottott-t the utell-settled pinciples crgstallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or othenuise disturb the' tial court's ocquittal: 1 . The appetlate court mag onlg ouemtle or otheruLise aisiu.* tne triil court's acquittlt i1 i has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so' A iumbel of instances arise in lDhich the appellate court utould houe "uery substantial and" compelling reosons" to discard the tiol court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons' eist uthen: i) The tial court's conclusion rtith regard to tle facts is palpably u,trong: - ' U)"rru tial court's decision taas based orl an" erroneous uretl) of laut; ' '"n l The tial court's judgment is tiketg to result in "graue miscarringe of justtce" ; iu) TLrc entire approoch of the tial court in deating uith tLrc kot *irt'"-i'dgment uas manifesttg uniust and -'-*Ui'n unreasonable; i;al court has ignored the euidence or mateial euidence or has igiored mateial d'ocuments like dging d-eclaration s/ report of the ballistic expert' etc' -"""- ii"fni ii is iiended to be illustrahue' not exhaustiue' eutdence utas PatenttY illegal; ""*-;-i;; -mi^sreod 2 120081 tO SuPreme Court Cases 450 5

2. Tlu: appellate court must always giue prcper rut.ight and. consid rratiin o the findings ol the tial iui. 3 If ttuo reosonable uietls can be reached__ one tlnt lead.s to acq ittr , the other to conuiction _the Highiouns/ appeltate coutls nu::t rule in fauour of the accased... 1,2. Thr: ver.s;ion of eye witness is contrary to the medical evidence e s rightly discussed by the learned Sessions Judge. There are abs olutely no grounds, much less any compelling reasons tc inl.erfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Se ;sio;rs Judge. 13 Acc,rr dinldy, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sdi- K. SR|N|VASA RAO JOllllr REGTSTRAR \ CIlON OFFICER I Sessions Judge. lFTC). Mahabubnao:rr The lV Add tion€ The Judicia MaJlistrate of First bta;s, ;d;;[""" The S^tation Ho ise Off icer, LaOctlerf r' iofl"e'6tr"tion, Jad cherta ,ly;":,?:j' the Public Prosecutor, Hish Co;;i;;inJ ,;triu or reransana at One CC to:in t)()itioari Sriclhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Co ries ''" o \ To, 1 2 4 t) vH HIGH COURT DATED: 30101t2025 JUDGMENI' CRLA.No.1041 ot 2O1t .i: J O 01 i.i , ?.t[lr * AE * ', -#'i ==1: DISMISSING THE APPEAL u ,{' l , I :