The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 The State of Telanqana. Rep.by State public prosecutor, Through Palavancha Town Police St;tioh. Tallari Hari Madhava Rao, R/o. Vikalangula Colony, palavancha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Additional Public prosecutor The Court detivered the fo owing: Judgment ...Respondents ;rrl =.'..'J t-_1 a;F'::i air1llr 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2535 0F 2018 JUDGMENT: lPer I lon ble Si Justice K.Surenrk:r) The criminal appeal is filed by the de_facto complainant, aggrieved by the acqlrittar recorded by the learned principal Magistrate Juvenile Justicc Board, Khammam, vide final order dated 19.01.20i8 inJCC No.BS of 20tZ. 2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivass Rao, Iearned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. 3. The appellant is the father of the victim boy (deceased). The prosecution case is that the deceased was found missing from the house. The appellant herein, who is the father of the deceased and examined as pW1, approached the police and filed a complaint/Ex.p1 with the police informing about the missing of deceased. The said complaint was register ed on O2.09.2016, stating that the deceased was missing from 01.09.2016. On 03.O9.2016)the dcad body of the boy was found. The police went to the scene and drafted the scene of palchanama. I I '!' scene was Incriminating material was seized. The photographed, arld the body was sent for postmortem examination. While the investigation \4/as in progress, on 06.O9.2016 at 09. 15 AM, the Investigating Officer/pWl8 received a call from PW5. According to pWS, the juvenile in conflict with law (JCL) and his father approached him and confessed about the coqrmission of offence. pWlg then secured the presence of PWs. 11 and 13, and confession of the JCL was recorded. Pursuant to his confession, a cement brick with blood stains was also recovered. A blood-stained white colour pants and a silver waist thread were also seized from the possession of the respondent. The material objects, which are the blood_stained jeans pants of JCL and cement brick that r,vere seized from the scene, were sent for examination to the FSL. Thereafter, the police concluded the investigation and fiied a charge_sheet against the JCL for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 377, and 379 of IPC, and Section 4 of pOCSO Act. 4. The learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board examined PWs.l to 18 and marked Ex.pl to plg. A portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of pW8 was marked as trx.D1.

5. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the following reasons for acquitting the JCL (1)There were no eyewitnesses to the alleged murder. (2)Though PWs.1 and 2 stated that the JCL had taken the deceased boy from his house along with them, however, PWl admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 that the JCL took his son for plaYing. (3) PW1 did not mention any suspected person's name with respect to the missing of the deceased boy. (4) PWs. I and 2 did not give the details of the person q'ho had given information about the dead body. (5) Though PW1B stated that he received a phone call from PW5, hou,ever, PWS turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. (6)Though PWs.6 to 8 stated that they saw the JCL and the deceased boy together, however, they admitted in their cross-examination that they had not witnessed the incident on that dav. (7) PW8 admitted that he did not revea1 to anybody about seeing the deceased boy ald the JCL together. (8) Suspicion, hou,ever strong, cannot be a basis to convict the accusecl.

6. The oni,r. ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that although the inve stigating ofhcer seized the cement brick as well as the wearing apparel of the JCL, sent them for examination to the FSL and received reports from the FSL; the prosecution did not produce the same before the Court and for that reason, the accused/JCl has to be remanded back to the trial Court for the purpose of retrial.

7. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the cement brick and arso the crothes of the JCL contained blood stains a,d they were sent to the F.LS, hower.er reports were not filed in the Court. No reasons are given for the non_filing-of the FSL reports. During the course of the trial, no efforts were made by the learned Public prosecutor or the appellant to request the Court to mark the FLS reports. 8 Under Section 11a(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference can be drar.,,,n for the reason of not producing the evidence that was available If at all the prosecution had the documents, which are the FSL reports, they ought to have been produced before the trial Court. In view of not submitting those FSL reports, an adverse inference has to be drarvn that they were deliberately not filed for the reason that the said documents are not supporting the case of the prosecution.

9. In cases ol acquittal, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, in Raui Shqrrnq. a. State (Gouernment of NCT of Delht) and anothert, held that, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the ' 12022; 8 Supreme Coun Cases 5 16 21 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 relatirzeiy slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

10. In Ghureg Lal u, State oJ tlttar pradesh2, tlne Hon,ble Supreme Court. after referring to several Judgmerrts regarding the settled principles of 1aw and the powers of appellate court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO as follorvs: . "7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and- other appellate Courts should follou_t thl tuell_settled- pinciples cry stallized bg number of Jud.gments r/ it ls going to ouernt.le or otherwise d_isturb tie tial court's acquittal: 1 . The appellate court may only ouemtle or otherwise disturb the ti.al court's acquittal i,f it has *uery su bstantiaL and compelling reasons" for doing so. A nunrber of instances aise in uthich the appellate court u.tould haue ,,uery substantial and. coipelting reasons" to discard the trial court's d,ecision. .Verl substantial and cctmpelling reasons,, exist wheru: i) The tnal ccturt's conclusion u,tith regard. to the facts ii) The trial court's decision was based. on an is palpablg Lurong: erroneous uietu of law; t iZOOSI tO Supr.cnlc Court Cases 450 i I I l I and unreasonable; tuith the euidence u-tas patently legal; iii)The trial court's jurlgment is tikelg to result in ograue miscarriage of justice,'; . -iulfhe entire approach of the tiat court in d,ealing u) The trial court's jud.gment utas manifestlg unjust ui)The tial court has ignored_ tLrc eutdence or misread_ the material euidence or has igncred. rnateriaL d.ocuments like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expetl, etc. This list is intended to be illustratiue, not 2. The appellate court must alutays giue proper uteight and consideration o the find ings oy theldal court. 3. If two reasonable uiews can ble reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction tn. iigi Courts/ appellate courts mu st rule in fauiur of the accused." uii) exhaustiue. 1 1. The only ground relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot sustain for the reasons discussed supra. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the well-reasoned finding of the leamed Sessions Judge. Accordingiy, the appeal fails.

12. In the result, the criminal appeal is clismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. PRATHIMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR k"?, sEctrbN oFFtcER To,

1. The Juvenile Justice Board, at Khammam ' I}a",r?.Bl",thePublic 3. One CC to Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies p'ot""'toi, n'gt' c*orrt for the state of rerangana at ADK/gh I p- HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.2535 of 2018 ,?.o ) i) 10 srp zffi * Or ,,.\ ,:i - rl .' ,,/, ''- ,..1 DISMISSING THE CRLA (A- @ \3 (