In Ravi Sharma v. State

Kethini Suri Babu, S/o Veera Raju. Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ralupet Village' Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District. Kethini Suresh, S/o Laxman Rao, Occ: Agriculture ,R/o Vadagudem Village, Mangapel Mandal, Warangal District. Mullapudi Satvanarayana @ Sathipandu, S/o Sathyam, R/o Vadagudem Villag'e, Mangipet Mandal. Warangal District Kethini Srinivasa Rao @ Sreenu, S/o Veera Raju, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Vadagudem Village, Mingapet Mandal, Warangal District. Kethini Ganqa Prasad @ Chninna Babu' Sio Veera Raju' Occ: Agriculture Rlo Vadagudem Village: Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District' Kethini Rambabu, S/o Veera Raiu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Vadagudem Village, Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District. Kethini Laxman Rao, S/o Suranna, Occ: Agriculture 'R/o Mangapet Mandal, Warangal District. Vadagudem Village, ...ResPodents/Accused No.2 to 8 Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor I Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 : Sri A Prabhakar Rao The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.948 OF 2O11 JUDGMENT: The appellant/victim filed this appeat questioning- the acquittal of respondents 2 to 8/A1 to A7 recorded by the II Addl.Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.A.No.22g of 2OOg, dt. 17.05.2011, for the offence under Sections 148 and 307 r/w.749 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Though, initialiy, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the respondents 2 to 8/A1 to A7 in S.C.No.ZZ of 2OO9, in appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted Accused Nos. 1 to 7

3. The case of the victim-PW.4 is that the incident happened on

24.04.2008, when A1 to A,7 attacked him. Briefly, the background is that, PW.4 sold Ac.4.34 guntas of land to A1 in the year 2OO4. There was a bore-well in his land. A1 leased out the land purchased by him to his brother 46. The remaining extent of land apart from Ac.4.34 guntas which was sold to Al, was given on lease.

4. In the absence of PW.4, his brother and mother occupied the land leased out and refused to return. A complaint was filed with l l I 2 the MRO by PW.4 against his mother and brother' Revenue Inspector went to enquire the incident. A1 and 4'6 informed the Revenue Inspector that the land belongs to the mother of PW'4' PW.4, then Iiled a suit against his mother and brother, obtained injunction and took possession of the land' PW'4 stopped supplying water to the freld of A1, as such, there were disputes between A1 and PW.4. A6 without consent of PW'4, drew water from his bore-well, as such, PW.4 asked A6 to pay the amount for the water drawn by him from his bore-well. When PW'4 went to the fields, a harvester was being run in the fields' PW'4 stopped the harvester'and questioned 4.6. A6 refused to give the amount' He went to the village and brought A1 to A5 and A7 along with him. A2 threw chill powder in the eyes and beat PW'4 with a crowbar. A1 and A3 beat PW.4 v/ith fists and sticks indiscriminately. PW.4 fell on the ground and became unconscious. He regained consciousness in the Yashoda Hospital' His right eye was removed.

5. The Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 as the persons responsible for causing injuries to PW.4. I 3 // //

6. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted A1 to A7, having examined tl-re witnesses PWs.1 to 10 and also relying on the documents Exs.Pl to P12.

7. The accused approachgd the Sessions Court by filing the appeal questioning the conviction. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds: i) Ex.Pl complaint does not mention the names of PWs.2 and 3 as eye-witnesses. ii) In Ex.P9 which is medical certificate issued by PW.8, it is mentioned that some unknown persons attacked PW.4. iii) The Investigating Oflicer-PW. 1O did not examine the driver of the harvester and also cleaner who witnessed the incident. M FIR does not mention the use of M.Os.1 and 2 which is wooden pesfle and crowbar to attack PW.4. v) PW.2 did not attribute any specific overt acts to the accused. vi) It is admitted that PW.4 was having disputes with his mother, and A1 supported his mother. vii) PW.4 alleges that all the accused have beaten him indiscriminately, however, only two injuries were found. I I I 4 viii) PW.8-doctor did not rule-out the possibility of pW.4 receiving injuries by falling on the harvester. ix) Even according to PW.4 he went to the land of A1 and stopped the harvester. x) MOs.l and 2 are not shown to the doctor-pW.B to know whether MOs.1 and 2 caused injuries.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-victim would submit that the victim received grievous injuries and his eye was removed on account of the injuries. The trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 as witnesses to the incident ald rightly convicted the accused. However, the reasons given by learned Sessions Judge in appeal are improper and accordingly, the Judgment of the Sessions Court deserves to be reversed.

9. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Governmeat of NCT of Delhif and another', the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 t 12O2Z1 8 Supreme court cases 536 I I /t 7 I 5 appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

10. ln Ghureg Lal v. State of tlttar pradesh, the Hon,ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regard.ing the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: *7O. In tte light of tlle aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follou.t the uell-seUled pinciples crystaltiz.ed. bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or oth.entise disturb the tial court's acquittal: 1 . The appellate court may only ouemtle or otherutise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it L;r,s "uery substanttal and compelling reason s" for d.oing so. A number of instances arbe in uhich the appellate court would. haue 'uery substantial and compelling reasons. to di_scard the tial court's decision- "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist u-then: lau.t; palpablg uLrong: mis carriag e of justice " ; i) The trial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is ii) Tlrc tial court's deci.sion tuas based on on erroneous uieu.t of iii) TtE tial court's judgment is tikely to result ln .graue iu) TLrc entire approach of the tiol court in dealing uith the u) Tte tial aurt's judgment LUas manifestly unjust and ui) 7:1rc tnd court has ignored the euidence or misread the material euidence or Lras ignored mnteial documents like dging declarations/ report of tle ballistic Ex.pert, etc. euidence uas patently illegal; unreasonable; consideration o the findings of the tiat court. uii)This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court must alwags giue proper weight and 3. If tuo reasonable uieuts can be reached. one tlult leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ appeltate coults must rule in fauour of th.e accused.." '120081 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 I I 6

11. The version given by PW.4 in the Court is an irnprovement from his earlier statement and also the complaint made under Ex.Pl. When A1 and other accused are known persons of the same village, the reasons as to why it was stated that unknown persons had attacked PW.4 when he was taken to the hospital, was not explained by PW.4. Only two injuries were received by PW.4 according to Ex.P8-wound certif-rcate. The said certification by the doctor falsifies the version of pW.4 that he was indiscriminately beaten by seven accused with the help of stones, stick and crowbar.

12. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record and reasonable. The said frndings cannot be reversed only on the ground that PW.4 had given a statement regarding the involvement of Al to A7. The said oral testimony of pW.4 is contrary to the documents which were filed at the earliest point of time i.e., FIR and medical report. The learned trial Court Judge convicted the accused on the basis of improved version of pW.4 during trial, which is erroneous.

13. There are no reasons which are compelling in nature to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which are reasonable, probable and based on record. In the said / I 7 circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in acquitting the accused.

14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR REGISTRAR D U //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 , 4 The ll Additional.sessions Judge, Warangal, Warangal District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies AD h a HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 t-; JUDGMENT CRLA.No.948 of 2011 ol( { $ E 3I,,q t ( i 1t rm zozs c' .... :(: :' i 1' ,t I -j DISMISSING THE CRLA