In Ravi Sharma v. State

Sri Aru n Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No 2 & 3 : Sri Jakkamsetti Ravindra The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE K.SURENDER AND-_ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O32 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents/Accused recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in SC.No.212 of 2013, dated 18.O9.20i5.

2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a crimina-1 complaint stating that his son aged around 9 years went to the school by boarding a CRPF school bus, but did not return. The boy was a student of Gowthami Residential High School, Meerpet. He used to return home by 4.3O p.rn., every day.

4. On the basis of the complaint given, the crime was registered as 'boy missing'.

5. During investigation, on 13.11.201O and 14.11.2O1O, the mother of the victim received phone call from the accused demanding a ransom amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. The section of law was altered to 2 364-A of IPC. On analyzing the ca-ll details, it was found that the calls were made through a coin box sitirated at MBNR cross roads, Aramghar. The accused also made a phone call on 29.11-2OlO ftom the coin box demanding a ransom amount of Rs. 15 lakhs. The Police laid a trap to apprehend the accused. The accused then came on their vehicle, however, went away on observing that the Police were at the scene. Al was apprehended and interrogated by the Police. Al confessed that he committed crime along with A2 and A3. On the basis of the confession of A1, the dead body was recovered. The body was identifred with the help of wearing apparel on the body.

6. A1 is driver of CRPF bus. According to the prosecution case, in order to extract money from the parents of the victim, he committed murder of the boy. Charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 364-A' 2O1 and 120-B of the Indian Penal code.

7. The learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under the said penal provisions, found that the accused was not guilty of the offence alleged.

8. The thrust of the prosecution case is the call records that were seized during the course of investigation, pertaining to the mobile phones of Al, A2 and the mother of the deceased. However, the call 3 data record that rvas produced was not certified under Section 65-8 of the Evidence Act. Placing reliance on Ee Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.V.Anaar a. P.K.Bqsheer and. others r, the learned Sessions Judge found that no reliance can be placed on the call records. Once the call records were eschewed from consideration, there is absolutely no other evidence on which the Court can rely upon to point the accused as the persons who are responsible for kidnapping the deceased boy. Further there was no amplifiable DNA yeld by the FSL to conduct DNA test, as such it was not conclusively proved that the dead body was that of the son of pW. 1 . The identification of the dead body was only on the basis of clothes found. on the dead bodr'.

9. 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 appeliate 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 I cot zot+ sc zgo '?12022; 8 Supreme Coun Cases 536 4 of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing.the order of the trial court reidering acquittal.

10. In Ghureg lal u. Sto:te of Uttar Pradeshr the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principies of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: "70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should fottou.t the u.tell-settled pinciples crystollized bg number of Jud.gments if it is going to ouemtle or othentise disturb the tial court's ocquittal:

1. The appellate court maA only ouerntle or otheruise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances aise in uhich the appellate court ulould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard th.e tial court's d.ecision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" etist uhen: i) The tial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpablg 1i1 rn taot court's decision was based on an erroneous uieut of lau; iii) The tial court's judgment is likelg to result in 'graue mbcaniage urong: of justice"; iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing uith the euidence was patentlg illegal; - u) The tiat court's judgment lras manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The tial court hoLs ignored the euidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored material documents like dging declarations/ report of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc. uii)This li-st is intended to be illustratiue, not exltaustlue' 2. The appettate court must aluaAs giue proper ueight and consideration o tle findings of the trial court.

3. If tuto reasonable uiews can be reached- one that leads to Htgh Courts/ appellate courts must acquittal, the other to conuiction rule in fauour of the accused-" -the ' 120081 lO Sup.e-" Court Cases 450 - 5

11. The main evidence to connect the accused, are the call records. However, certificate was not given under Section 65-8 of the Evidence Act to rely upon such call records. In the absence of certification, the call records cannot be looked into, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court. The dead body found was not conclusively proved to be that of the son of PW. l. There is absolutely no infirmity vrith the findings of the learned Sessions. Judge, which are based on record and reasonable. In the said circumstances, we do not hnd any reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in acquitting the accused.

12. Accordingl5', Criminai Appeal is dismissed. \ To, i/TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER /: 'l . The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of T.elangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Jakkamsetti Ravindra, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VA/gh @; HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1032 ot 2017 DISMISSING THE CRLA O6 21 llAh 216 z t a)€sP .l *