The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Raju The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O15 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The acquittal of the respondent/ accused resulted in the State questioriing the said acquittal, by Iiling the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case is that PW. 1 who is the son of the deceased lodged complaint on 30.06.2013. According to the complaint, his father left the house on the previous day in the evening and did not return home. While sea-rching, his father was found in the fields of Sherikar Syed Sab (not examined). There were injuries all over the body of the deceased and his leg was fractured. When PWs.l, 3 and 4 enquired with the deceased as to how he received injuries, the deceased stated that the appellant had caused injuries to him. Initially, the complaint was lodged under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. After the death of the deceased, section of law was altered to Section 302 ofthe Indian penal Code. 2

4. Charge was framed under Section 3O2 of Indian Penal code. The learned Sessions Judge, examined witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The following circumstances were relied on by the proseculion to prove its case: "i) That the accused has a motive to kill the deceased as the deceased abused the accused ald insulted him before others on

29.06.2013 at 6.30 p.m.; ii) That the accused was last-seen in the company of the deceased while he waq taking the deceased to the agricultural fields of Syed Sab at about 10.00 P.M. on 29.06.20L3; iii) That the deceased was found lying with injuries in the agricultural fields of Syed Sab and the deceased reported to PWs. 1 to 4 that he was intoxicated and beaten by the accused; iv) that the accused came to the house of PW.5 with blood stained clothes at about 1 1.30 P.M. to engage his auto; v) That the confession of the accused led to recovery of a stick used in the commission of the offence and; 3 vi) That the injuries caused by the accused led to the death of the deceased.

5. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence on record found that: i) The last seen theory as stated by PWs.8 and 9 was not in proximity to the time when the dead body was found; ii) Since the time gap in between the last seen and the deceased being found is vast, it would be impossible for the Courts to conclude that it was the appellant only and none other who committed the cnme- iii) PW.6 stated that he found the accused dragging the deceased around 1O.00 p.m. on 29.06.2013, however, the deceased was found on the next day morning at 8.OO a.m. by PWs.l to 4. iv) The time gap is around 10 hours and the possibility of receiving injuries accidentally or on account of someone else beating him, cannot be ruled out. v) Though the deceased was taken to the Police Station, his statement was not recorded and the Investigating Officer explained 4 that the deceased was in unconscious condition to record his Dying Declaration. vi) No evidence was placed by the prosecution to prove that the deceased was conscious on the date of incident and was in a frt condition to give the oral statement to PWs' 1 to 4' vii) The alleged seizure of Mo.7 which is a stick, did not contain any blood stains. It was also not sent to FSL. The prosecution failed to prove that there was any motive on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi! and

6. 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 evidence on record has been alalysed. 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' I (2022) E Supreme Court Cases 536 5

7. ln Ghureg Lal v. State of Uttar Prad.esh'z the Hon'lcle Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellia.te Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: "70. In the hght of the aboue, the High Court'and other appellate Courts should follow the uell-settled pinciples crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to ouemtle or otlentise disturb the tial court's acquittal: .

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouerntle or othentise disturb the tial court's dcquittal if it ho.s "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances ari-se in uhich the appellate court utould haue "uery substantial and compelling reosons" to discard the tial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist uthen: urong: . I The fial court's conclusion uith regord to the facts is palpablg ii) TLrc fial court's decision uas based on an erroneous uieu of latu; of lustice"; uas patentlg illegal; unreasonable; iii) TLre fial court's judgment is likelg to result in "graue rniscarriage iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing uith ihe euidence u) The tial court's judgment u)as manifestly unjust and ui) The trial court has ignored the euidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dUinS declaration-s/ report of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc. uii)This list is intend.ed to be illustratiue, not exhnustiue. 2. The appellate court must alwaAs giue proper u.teight and consideration o the Jindings of the tial court. If trao reasonable uietus can be reached_ one that leads to acquittal, the other to I 1 conuiction _the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in fouour of the accused.', 212008; tO Srrp.e-e Court Cases 450 -+3 6

8. Since there was a time gap of 10 hours, when the deceased and a_ppellant were last seen together and the body of the deceased being found, there arises any amount of doubt on account_of the time gap that the accused was responsible for the injuries on the deceased. The version of PWs.l, 3 and 4 that the deceased stated about the appellant causing injuries cannot be believed since the Investigating Officer stated that the deceased was in an unconscious state. The prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence of any expert doctor to suggest that the deceased was in a fit condition to give his statement as correctly found by the learned Sessions Judge. g. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are based on record, reasonable and cannot be interfered with in this appeal against acquittal.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA D UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy' z. rwo ccs io tne public prosecutor, High court for the state ot I elangana aI Hvderabad. IOUTI O'ne CC to Sri M. Raiu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, J. 4. Vtl/gh '/p HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112025 16rE S lAl t q/ J c r) 2 g APn 2075 q , t o6.SrATCli JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1015 of 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL