In Rawi Sharma v. State

Counsel for the Appellant: Additional Public prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D. KULASHEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I I I // a / HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.ST'REIVDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.823 OF 2O24 JIIDGMEIIT: This Crininal Appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offences under Section 307 of Indiar Penal Code.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2022, the victim PW-2 and his wife PW-l went to the police station and lodged a written complaint stating that her husband PW-2 along with other villagers i.e., the respondent/accused, Mankani Santhos, Katakwar Goutham Singh, Solanki Prathap Singh, Chouhan Srinivas, Mankani Baji Singh and others shared their cooli amount. However, during sharing of the amount, accused gave Rs.2OO less. For the said reason PW-2 picked up quarrel witJ: accused. l,ater, all of them purchased beer bottles at Nirmal Town ut". and went to an open place outside Gowliguda Village and started consuming the beer. Keeping the earlier incident in mind of PW-2 questioning the accused regarding the amount of Rs.2OO not being shared, the ar:cused hit Pw-2 on his left jaw with an intention to murder him. I I I I I 2

4. On the basis of complaint and examining the witnesses, a charge sheet was frled against the accused for the offence under Secdon 307 oflPC.

5. The leamed Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds:

1. The exact location where the incident had taken place was not proved by the prosecution.

2. The first witnesses Mankani Santhos, Katakwar Goutham Singh, Solanki Prathap Singh, Chouhan Srinivas, Mankani Baji Singh and Mankani Kana Singh, who were named in the F.I.R were not examined before court.

3. Ex.P2 is the injury certificate which reflects that PW-2 received a simple idury.

4. An un-broken beer bottle was collected during the investigation, however, the injury was caused by a sharp object and a beer bottle cannot be a sharp object.

5. Though MO- 1 i.e., broken glass pieccs of beer bottle were deposited, however it was not of the brand kingfisher since it was stated that the assault was with the kingfisher beer bottle. i ! 3

6. The learned Additional public Frosecutor would submit that PW-2 who is injured, stated about the assault by the accused resulting in his injury. In the said circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have recorded conviction. 7. On the other hand, Mr.D.Kulashekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused has argued supporting the findings ofthe learned Sessions Judge. 8. In Rawi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhit and anotherl, the Hontle 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 appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of $ the trial court rendering acquittal. 9. In Ghureg La.l o. Stahe of uttar pra.d.esh2 the Hon,ble 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 paraZO, as follows: ' (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 ' (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 I I I L *70. In tle light of the aboue, the High Court and" other appellate Courts sltould follou the uell-settled pridples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going tn ouemtLe or otherutbe dbturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court mag only ouerntle or othendse disturb the trial coutt's acquittal if it has 'uery su-bstontial ond ampeU)ng reasons" for doing so. A number of instonces orbe in which the appellate @urt u,ould haue "uery substantial and compelling reason s" tn di,scard'the trial court's decision. 'Very substantial and compelling reasons" erist uhen: i) The trial court's anclusion u.tith regard. to the facts is palpa.blg wrong: ti) The trial court's decbion was based on an erron&us uiew of lau;; iiil ThE trial court's judgment is likelg to result in 'graue mis carriag e of justice " ; euidence was patentlg illegd; iu) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing u-tith the u) The tri,al court's judgment u)as monifestlg unjust dnd. unreo.sonable; ui) The trial court has ignored the euidene or misread the naterial eui.dence or has ignored material documents like dging declarations/ report of the balli-stic expert, etc. uii)This lbt i,s intend.ed to be illustratiue, not exLnustiue. 2. The appellate court must aluags giue proper ueight and corsi.derotion o the findings of the trinl court.

3. If tun reasonable uietus can be reached_ one that ba.ds to ocquittal, the other to conuiition _the High Courts/ appellatE courts must rule in fauour of the accused. "

10. Admittedly, the injury received by PW-2 was a simple injury that too with an unbroken beer bottle. It cannot be said that the accused had an intention to commit the murder of PW-2.

11. No reasons are give n as to why the eye witnesses narned in the complaint were not examined and given up by the prosecution during the course of the trial I I I I I I i I 1 I I i t I I I /t 5

12. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge while recording the acquitta-l and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shal1 stand dismissed' /ffRUE COPY// sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEF, TY REGISTRAR c CTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 pr./gh . The Assistant Sessions Judge at Adilabad. The Judicial Magistrate of Fi-rst Class, Aditabad . I he station House officer, Neradigonda porice station, Adirabad District. L*g C9r to the pubtic prosecutor]High Co,t for'ti; Srate oiieta-ngiri; at Hyderabad (OUT) 9n" 99 to SRI.D.KULASHEKAR, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies @A HIGH COURT DATED: 061Ct112025 JUDGMENT GRLA.No.82.3 of 2024 ,s 1 $e ST^re ! 1t l1[n 20?5 ,lf i '' i,'l ,/,/ DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL