Police immediately. He placed reliance on the judgment of vs State of Punjabr, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held

Counsel for the Respondents No.1,8 & 9: Sri K. Vasanth Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 7: Sri Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan Criminal ADDeal No.656 of 2017 Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C against the order dated 01-06-2007 passed in SC.No.250 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the A;ditional Metropolitan sessions Judge for the trial of communal offence cases -cum- Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad. Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. .Petitioner/Appellant AND Syed Khaja Majeeduddin, S/o Syed Khaia Fareeduddin, Age:31 years, RJo New Mallepally, Hyderabad. ...Accused No.8 g Counsel for the Appellant: Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri K. Vasanth Rao, Legal Aid The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT i t;I I I i, I l(\ THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURINDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. ANIL KI'MAR CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.655 & 656 OF 2OL7 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice KSurender) l. Crl.A.No.655 of 2Ol7 is preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of A-1 to A-7 and A-9 and Cr1.A.No.656 ol 2OI7 is hled questioning the acquittal of A-8 in S.C.No.2SO of 1996, on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases- Cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, RedHills, Hyderabad.

2. Since both the Appeals arise out of common judgment, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard Sri K.Vasanth Rao, learned legal aid counsel appearing of A- 1, A-8 and A-9 and Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, Iearned counsel appearing for A-2 to A-7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. The respondents/ accused Nos.l to 9 were charge sheeted for entcring into a conspiracy to strike terror in different sections of people by placing explosives which are 2 L a respondents/ accused were responsible for bombs. Accordingly, tl.ey planted bomb at Madina Education Center, located opposite to public Garde tU LUr'f^ n.ln,u+ieh one Pasha Miya died. The Police have taken up investigation and identifred Nos.1 to 9 as the persons who placing the bombs, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to one Sweeper named The accused were charge sheeted under Sections 120_8, 286, 436, 324 r/w.34 of IpC, Sections 25 & 2Z of Arms Act and Sections S ana S of the Explosive Substances Act and charges were accordingly MaIlamma. framed.

5. karned Sessions Judge has acquitting the accused. glven reasons for 6 l,earned public prosecutor would fairly submit that her argument is confined only to the provision under the Arms Act, since M.Os.I to 3 were recovered. Further, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no evidence as other allegations under IpC and Explosives Act are insofar concerned

7. Learned M.Os.l to 3 Sessions Judge discussed the seizure of which were from the possession of A 6 in 3 pursuance of disclosure statement, however, P.W. 13 did not support the prosecution case. Apart from the said evidence of P.W. 13, there is no other evidence which was relied on by the prosecution to show that M.O. l, which is a country made revolver, was seized at the instance of A-6 which was in working condition. Further, learned Sessions Judge found that the property though seized was not deposited by the Police immediately. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh @ Babu Vs. State of Punjabr, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that the seized weapons not being sealed would be a seriQus infirmity and tampering could not be ruled out. Learned Sessions Judge found the facts in the case of Amarjit Siagh's case are similar to the lacts ol the present case. g. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rcrai Shanna o. Stdte (Gouernment o! NCT of Dethi) and s another2, 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 r 1995 SCC (CRl) 828 2 lZOZZl e Supreme Court Cases 536 4 reason is that an order of acquittai 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. 10' rn Ghureg l-ar a. state of tlttar prad.esrf the Honble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellatc Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: .'.7O In the tight of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should fo_llou the _."u_r*iio- )nn ipl", crystalhzed bg number of Judgments iy it o goi; to ul.,.rn l" o, otheru.tise disturb the triat court,s aquittal: ' " "i. '- eet t' nqu 1: The appellate court maA only ouemtle or othenuise , dtsturb tLrc trial court's aceuittit y ii n"" ;r)-"i'sJlrstantiat and compelling reasons" for aonj A number of instances arbe ln u.thich the appellate court tuould hnue .uery substantial and_ compellinf '."rrionr,, discard the trial court,s d.ecision. "V.rg .;Arro;.tirot ona compelling reasons" exist tt_tlLen: i) The trial court's conclusion uith regard to the Jocts is ii) TLrc trial court's deci.sion wos based on an err()neous tial court,s jud_gment is likelg to resutt in ,,graue the tiat aurT in deuttnq u,rth rhe ul 'fhe.trial courl's judgment was manifestlA un1ust ond ^,^^:i:).|h. mrs carnage of justice" ; (utuence utas paten g illegal; ",,,^-,31!1:":::_:!!,::"h..f palpablg urong: uietu of laut; unreasonable; r 1ZOO81 fO Supreme Court Cases 450 5 ui) The tnd court hos ignored th.e evidence or misread the materi.al euidence or *tas ignored mateial documents like dging declarations/ reporr of the ballistic exryrL etc. vii)This list is intended to be illustrotiue, not exhnustiue. 2, The appellate court must olwaAs giue proper weight and arsideration o the findings of the tial court. leads to aquitta| the other to conutction -the Courts/ apellate courts must rule in fouour of the accused."

3. If two reasonable uieuts con be reached- one that High

11. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge insofar as offences under the Arms Act are concerned are based on record and need no interference.

12. 'Accordingly, both the Appeals are dismissed. Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Communal Offence cases -cum- Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad. (with records, if any) The )(Xl Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The lnspector of Police, S.l.T (Special lnvestigatron Team) Hyderabad. Two CCs to the Public Proseculor, High Court for the State of Telangana lF at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri K. Vasanth Rao-cum- Legal Aid [OUT] One CC to Sri Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 kam/DL HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.655 & 656 of 2017 r{E S4re 1 c J3 07 rnr 21ffi t trD { C P { ( $ BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED