In Ravi Sharma v. State

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREI\IDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAF: JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.388 OF 2017 JUDGMENTT @er llon hle Shri Justice Anil Kunar Jukantil This criminal appeal is preferred b1, the State, challenging the judgment dated 21.1O.2016 ir S.C.No.99 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Scss:ons Judge, Hyderabad. acquitting the accused for rhe offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'lPC').

2. Heard learned Additional public pror;ecutor for appellant State and Iearned counsel for respondent/ accused.

3. The case of the prosecution is that pW 1, sister of the deceased, lodged an English r.r,ritten co mplaint on 08.07.20i5 at 14:O0 hrs, stating that her yorrnger sister (deceased-Saritha Sharma) informed her a few days earlier that her husband (accusecl-Rajesh KunLar Sharma (@ Rajesh Sharma) was suspecting her chr.racter and ..1 2 KS. J & J.t^..t Crl .4 \'o -lEE )t)l- harassing her mentally and physically and requested to settle the issue. That on 0g.07.2015, at 12:30 p.m., when she along with her daughter was entering the deceased,s flat, her brother-in-law (accused) hurriedly rzrn away, pushing her aside without repiying. It is further stated in the complaint that she saw the deceased lying on the bed in a pool of blood, with injuries on her head and blood oozing from her head. A small iron rod was found on the bed, biood was scattered on the walls and found her sister dead. When she raised hue and cries, the inmates, Sonia Sharma w/o. Rakesh Sharma (co,sister of deceased) came out of her room and Kamal Nayan Sharma, father_in_lain, came from down. She intimated her husband and other relatives and they came to police Station, Mangalhat, and lodged complaint stating that her brother-in-law (Rajesh Sharma) brutally murdered her sister with an iron rod bv beating her on her head.

4. Crime No.150 of 2015 was registered under Section 3O2 of IPC. PW.10 took up investigation, recorded statement of PW. 1, rushed to the scene of offence and found the body 'lying r1 the pool of blood. pW. 1O secured J KS J & J,'IK. J Crl A \o 3lJ8 2al7 two panchas PW.6 and Susheel Kumar, co.-rducted the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanam 1 in their presence. They also drafted a rough sketch of scene of offence and took photographs. pW.IO ex. rnined and recorded the statements of PWs.l to 6, condu:ted inquest panchanama and shifted the body to Osmaeia Generai Hospital. PW.7 conducted autopsy on 09.OT.2O15. pW.iO collected MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence and MOs.5 to 8 at the hospital, after autopsy

5. On receir.ing information about the accused, a special team rushed to Secunderabad Railwav Station and apprehended the accusecl at 13:40 hrs on 09.C7.2015 and produced him before PW.10. On interrogatic,n, accused admitted his guilt. Confession statement was recorded in the presence of two panchas and seized his :Iothes i.e., MOs.9 and 10. Accused was produced before tlre Court on lO.O7 .2015 with remand report and was sent to judicial remand. Material Objects seized were ser t to FSL. Statement of PW.S was recorded under S.:ction 164 Cr.P.C. before XVII Addi. C.M.M., Hyderabad. After 4 KS, J & J.IK.,I ('rl 1 ,\o 388 l0l. completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against .l the accused

6. According to the investigating officer, the accused harassed his wife physically and mentally in front of his children and that he was suspecting her character. On

08.07.2015, accused picked up ar altercation, abused her in filthy language and insulted her as characterless. When his wife raised objection and warned him not to abuse, the accused went into kitchen, picked up an iron rod, pushed her on bed and attacked with iron rod on her head, breaking the skull, causing instantaneous death.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State submitted that PWs.l and 4 were at the place of incident immediately and rejecting their evidence, terming them as chance witnesses is erroneous. That evidence of PW.5 was not considered and was discarded without any reasons.

8. PW.1 and PW.4 are not eye witnesses to the offence. They came to the house of deceased and found her dead. PW. 1 in her evidence statEsthat when she raised hue and ! ) K.\ J&J,.lK-J ( rl 1to J88 2017 cries on seeing her sister in a pool of blood, Sc nia Sharma w/o. Rakesh Sharma, who was present in her bedroom (adjacent bedroom, scene of offence panchr rama along with sketch Ex P.2), came. PW. 1in the compliint, trx p. l, stated that Sonia Sharma came out of her I oom, when she raised hue and cries. Sonia Sharma is no_ examined. The presence of accused could have been testified by Sonia Sharma. PW.1 in her evidence statel that she talked to her sister-in-law as to how tI e incident occurred. No information is gathered from tl Le inmates. When there are other inmates present in thc flat at the time of offence, it is unsafe to conclude the luilt of the accused, without the inmates being exam ned. Non_ examination of Sonia Sharma is fatal to t te case of prosecution.

9. PW. 1 and PW.4 u,ere not present at r 're time of occurrence. If an offence is committed in a dwelling house/flat, the inmates are natural witnesscs. When a witness is interested in the deceased, the evid :nce needs to be weighed cautiously, more so, when th:y are not direct q,itnesses. Testimony of pW- 1 and pW.4 is not free 6 KS.J&Ji1K.J Crl ,1 No 388 )017 from doubt. PW.10 admits that there are others residing along with the accused, but did not record their statements (the inmate Sonia Sharma is not examined). trxplanation for not recording is that they were not present at that time. PW.10 admits that the building consists of residential houses and commercial rooms, however, he did not record the statements of the occupants of the building. These lapses go to the root of the case.

10. PW.S in her cross examination stated that Phone Number 9603463209 was of her father. In Ex.D1, which is a statement recorded by Police under Section 16 I of Cr.P.C, it was stated by PW.5 that her mother was using the Phone Number 9603463209. Ex.D2 is also the statement of PW.5, in which, she states that her father was using Phone Number 9676910867. Statements liled in the Court do not contain Exs.D 1 and D2 part of the said statements. This is contrary to what is stated by PW.S before the Court in her cross-examination that Phone Number ending with 209 belongs to her father. PW.1O in his cross-examination stated that he examined >l 7 KS J&J,.IA,J (lrl A.No J88 J017 PW.S twice, but only one statement is filed in the Court and the second statement was not furnis hed to the accused. Non furnishing of statement to the a(,cused is hit by concept of fair trial and suppression has a:1 impact on the outcome of the case. No cait data records ; ertaining to the mobile number of the deceased is placec on record. These lapses are fatal to the case of prosecutio t.

11. PW.2 and pW.3 are residents of yadagiri, Karnataka. In the evidence, they stated that they came to Hyderabad on O8.O7.2O l5 and were informed by pW. 1 tLat accused suspected the character of the deceased and was harassing her. They found the deceased iying with bleeding injuries on the head and that accusea killed her. PW.3 in his cross-examination states that th,: deceased did not have cell phone. This evidence is con[-an, to the evidence on record.

12. PW. 10 in his evidence states that he did not seal the property seized from the scene of offence or lrom the possession of the accused. He again says that he sealed the property. These contradicting statement s clo not ,i 8 xs. .l lt -1,1K. J Cr1 ..1 .{o J88 20l 7 '\ inspire confidence ol this Court. PW.9 in his evidence states that the Police Station is at a distalce of 2 to 3 kms from Nampally Criminal Courts and it was a working day. Magistrate received the FIR at 10.45 p.m. on 08.07.20 15, though the complaint u'as received at 02.00 p.m. The unexplained delay gives rise to any arnount of doubt as to the timing of the comPlaint.

13. PW. 1 and PW.4 are not eye witnesses, inmates are not examined, there is suppression of statements, delay in dispatch of FIR, contradicting statements with regard to the seizure of property, non-examination of the occupartts of the building ald no call data record is obtained' These lapses are fatal to the case of the prosecution'

14. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) 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 the evidence on record has been analyzed' The reason is | (2022) I Supreme Court cases 536 J 9 its,J&J.l^.J ('rl A. \'o 388 2A1l that an order of acquittai adds up to the pre sumption of I n nocence in favour of the accused. Thus, t he appellate court has to be relativelv slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal

15. ln Ghureg Lal u, State of Uttar Prad.esh,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments rega-rding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court 1n reversing t. re order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows "70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and. otlrcr oppellate Courts shoutd follotu the utell settled pinciples crystall[zed by nuntber of Judgments if it is going o ouemtle or othertuise disturb the trial courl's acquittal: 1 . The appellate coutl mag onlg ou znttle or othet-tuise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances aise in u. hich the oppellate court utould haue "uery substattial and compelling reasons" to discord the tnnl court's decisiott. "Very substantiol and compelling reasons" exist Luhen: /acts is palpablg urong: i) The trial court's conclusion uith regc rd to the ii) The tial court's decisiorl LDas base d on an iii)The tial court's judgment is likely to result in erroneous uieu of law; "graue miscarriage of justice"; iu) The efttire' approoch of the triol court ln deoling tuith the euidence uLas patentlg iltegaL; 'z1zOOa) fO Supreme Court Cases 450 \ 10 KS. .t Ci J4K. ./ ( rl ,1 \o 188 )011 judgment uas manifestlg u) The tial court's unjust and unreasotrable; ui)The trial court has iqnored tlte euidence or misread the material euid_ence or has ignored. mateiaL documents _like dging d.eclarations/ report of the ball$ttc Ex.Pert, etc. l.his ljst is intended to be illustratiue, not . 2. T'he appellate court must ahuag s giue proper "oy tte tnat uteight and consideration o the fi.nd_ings court. uit.) exhaustiue. If two reasonable uiews can be reached_ one that ieads to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the Higtt Courts/ appettate courts must rule in fauour of Lhe accused."

16. Though blood group O+ vras found on the bed and clothes, however no test was conducted to link the said blood with that of the accused. The said blood O+ fging found is of no consequence. Furrther, the delay in sending the FIR to the Court and also the recording of statements of PWs. 1 and 4 make them unreliable and cannot be termed as chance witnesses. It appears that the witnesses PWs. I a;rd 4 weroe pl tedAI 17 . In the present case, on a cumulative reading and appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the trial Court had not fa1len ir-r error in appreciation of evidence in accordance with law. KS J&J,IK,J ( rt I \o lE8 )t)17 The prosecution must prove its case bevond any reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution, thus, sulfers from inlirmities, contradictions an.1 lapses as discussed above, which are fatal to the case. Ihere are no compelling reasons to interfere with the fin lings of the trial Court 1B For reasons aforesaid, Criminal Appeal i ; dismissed Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pend ing in this Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL dpnurv REGtSTRAR .]SEcTIoN oFFIcER $\i\; /- l- To, 1 2 3 4 The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad Two ccs to the Pubric Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to SRI K SR|N|VASA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies ADK YK HIGH COURT DATED:29104t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.388 of 2017 Gii1t;;1 $ Y ) 1 { I lJUN 20m ,,}.... ^-'rr_ ' ----:_-_-_- -- DISMISSING THE CRLA q, cae(oL \+- 6ev