The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad 500066. .Appel la nUCom pla ina nt AND 1 2 Galli Sudhakar, S/o- Venkataiah, Age 50 years, Occ Police Constable, N/o Mahabubabad, R/o.Rangampet, Warangal. 9ondla Rajitha, W/o. Kumaraswamy, Age 40 years, Occ Housewife, Nio. Mahabubabad, R/o. Rangampet, Warangal. ...Respondents/Acc used Counsel for the Appellant : Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao The Court delivered the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR.ENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No'816 OF 2024 JUDGMENT: 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 489-A' 489-8 and 489-C IPC vide judgment in S'C'No'436 of 2022' dated 2a'12'2O23 passed by the Assistart Sessions Judge, Warangal' Hanumakonda'

2. According to P.W. 1, who is the Inspector of Police' he along with P.W.2 went to Rangampet, Warangal on information received about existence of counterfeit currency. He rushed to Rangampet ald in front of H.No.15-2-360,he found A1 and A2 in possession of counterfeit curency of Rs.1,0O0/- and Rs'500/- denomination' They were apprehendedandtakentothepolicestationforinvestigation.Duringthe course of investigation, the involvement of other accused was known' However, since none could be traced, A1 and A2 were charge sheeted'

3. The charge sheet was filed for being in possession of counterfeit currency and circulating the same with the help of other accused'

4. karned Asslstant Sessions Judge having framed charges for the said offences, acquitted the accused on the following grounds: 2 i) According to Ex.Dl, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 who allegedly arrested A1 and A2 were on oflicial duty in Under Investigation cases in the Warangal Urbal in between 06.03.2015 to 08.03.2015 at 10.45 p.m. ii) The documents Exs.D1 and D2, which are clairns of P.Ws. 1ald 2 for the travel ellowance bill, were not disputed. iii) If P.Ws. 1 arrd 2 were on the said duty, it casts doubt on the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that at 1.00 p.m on 08.03.2015, A1 and A2 were apprehended. iv) The complaint was hled at 7.45 p.m with a delay of nearly 7 hours. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 failed to explain the reason for the delay. v) Independent witnesses to the confession and seizure turned hostile to the prosecution case, as such, the confession and seizure without corroborating evidence is suspicious. vi) Disciplinary proceedings were ordered against A 1 , however, P.Ws.l and. 2, during the disciplinar5r proceedings pleaded igrrorance about the involvement of A 1 and A2 in circulation of counterfeit currency, in the said proceedings 3 vii) P.Ws. I a:rtd, 2 have spoken two different versions, one in the criminal case and another version in the departmental enquiry case, as such, their evidence carnot be accepted. In Ravi Sharma v. state (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anotherl, 5. the Hon'ble Supremc Court held that while dealing with al 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 appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

6. ln Ghureg Lal u. Stdte o;f tlttar ProdesE the Honlcle 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 para 70, as follou,s: "7o. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appeltqte Courts should folloto the uell-setlled pinciptes crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or otlrcnuise disturb the tial court's acEtiflal: - r.cquittc.l if it trii "uery substantial and' compelling reasons" for doing so'

1. The opPetlate coui mag onlg ouerntle or othenuise disturb the tial court's A iumber of ittstances arise in which tlv opPetlote court uould hqtE "uery substqnlial ond contpelling reasons" to discard the tial court's decision "Very substantial and compelling reqsons" exist uhen: i) The t.....l court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is palpablg utrorq: ii1 TLrc trial court's decision uas ba.sed on an enoneous uieu of lau); iiil lhe tiat court's judgment i.s liketg to result in "grave mismniage of Ttstice'; ii) 7'1rc entire oppioain of lhe tnol court in dealing uith tle evidence was 'patentlA illegot; I I , I '12022) 8 Supreme court cases 536 t 120081 10 Supre.e court cases 450 4 a) u) The tial court's judgment uas mnnikstlV unjust and unreasonable; ui) Tlrc tnal court hos ignored the euidence or rni.sreqd the mqteial euidence or has ignored mateial doanments like dytng declarations/ repoft of the ballistic experl, etc. uii)This list is intended. to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The oppellate court must aluags giue proper ueight and consideration o the findings of tle trial court. If tuo reo.sonable uietas can be reqched_ one that lead.s to acqtittal, the other to conubtion _the Htgh Courts/ oppelLctte couris must rule in fawur of the acqtsed,'

7. The admitted documents, which are Exs.Dl and D2 arrd other documents clearly reflect that P.Ws. 1 arrd 2 were on some other duty on

08.03.2015 when the'alleged seizure was made. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have given two different versions in criminal case and in the departmental enquiry case. In the said circumstances, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly granted benefrt of doubt. There are no compelling reasons to reverse the judgment of acquittal.

8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// sd/- K. DEPUTY RE SAILESHI GISTRAR S CTION OFFICER The Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal at Hanamkonda. (With records) The lnspector of police, Matwada police Station Prosecutor, Hish court for the state of retansana at Iyot"?rhlt 61!ltc One CC to Sri A. prabhakar Rao, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies \ To, 2 3

4. q DL/gh *r"- q J c 1 He grA r e' 07 IlAR 2[25 ) ,,9 I o( ': HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.816 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ,t d-