In cases of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Ctourt in Ravi Sharma v. State

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. Vivekanand Reddy, Additlonal Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Aisha, representing Mr. Raja Gopallavan Tayi The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.821 OF 2015 ORDER: The State has preferred the present Appeal aggrieved by the judgrnent passed by the learned First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C'C' No '622 of 20O8 dated 09.06.20O9 whereunder the respondent/ accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC'

2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as under: "The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.02.2C/18 at 2:3O p.m- the complainant anjaiah PC 5376 (L.W l) gave a complaint at police station stating that on l4.O2.2OOg at about 1:30 p-m. while he was on duty at Iqbal Minar Saifabad, they received information through pubtic that a road accident occurred at Ar5ra Bhavan Saifabad. immediately he along with Srinivas Rao, Sub- Inspector of Trafhc Potice, Chikkadpally (LW-2) proceeded to the spot ad noticed that one person is lying dead with crush head injury and he is by narne Ashanna' Head Constable of Tralfrc police station Saifabad' On enquiry complainant came to know that while the deceased was getting down from the bus the driver of one Metro bus moved the bus rashly and negligently and as a result of which deceased fetl down and the rear left side wheel of the bus ran over the head of the deceased and deceased died at the spot-" 2

3. Heard M. Vivekanand Reddy, Iearned Additional public Prosecutor, Ms. Aisha, iearned Counsel representing Mr. Raja Gopallvan Ta;,i, learned Counsel appea_ring on behalf of respondent/ accused.

4. Learned Additional public prosecutor submits that the trial Court u.ithout properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on recorci, erroneously acquitted the accused, though the prosecution discharged their burden to prove the offence under Section 304 A IpC. He further submits that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of p.Ws_3 and 4, who are eye witnesses. The impugned judgment passed bv the Court below is liable to be set aside.

5. Per <:ontra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/accused submits that the respondent/ accused has not committed the offence and the trial Court after going through the oral and documentary evidence on rercord rightly held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence levelled against him. ,I.here are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court 3

6. Having considered the rival contentions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint lodged by P'W-1' Crime No.97 of 2OO8 was registered against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3O4-A IPC. The Investigating Offrcer after conducting investigation filed chargc sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No.622 of 2008.

7. On behaif of prosecution, P'Ws-l to 10 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked' After due verification of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court below come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the resPondent/ accused' It is pertinent to mention that P'Ws-3 and 4 who a-re eye 8. witnesses in their evidence they have given d'ifferent versions' basing on the same, the trial Court come to the conclusion that there is a contradictory statements between P'Ws-3 and 4 and hence their evidence was disbelieved' It is further revealed from the case of the prosecution that P'W-1 had collected the bus tickets from P.Ws-3 and 4. However, the prosecution has not filed the said documents before the Court below' The trial Court 4 come to the conclusion that non-filing of those tickets by the prosecution raises doubt to accept the version of p. W_ 1 . 9' It is pertinent to mention that the accident was occurred on 14.02.'.2OO8. However, p.W_9, M.V.I. inspected the crime vehicle on 13.05.2008, after more than three months from the date of accident and issued report trx.p 6. Even according to the evidence of p.Vr'-9, he i.eceived the requisitioir only on 13.05.2OO8 to inspect the crime vehicle. The trial Court rightly held that the prosecution has not taken steps to conduct inspection of the crime vehicle itself raises doubt.

10. In cases of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Ctourt in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhif and anotherr, held that while dealing with an appeal againsr acquittal, the appellate c<>urt has to consider whether the trial Court,s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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. ' 1zozz1 a scc s:o 5 1 1 . It is also relevant to mention that in Ghurey Lal v' State of Uttar Pradesh2 the Hontrle 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 follows: "70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overn-r1e or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: t. The appellate court may only overmle or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so' A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial ald compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision "Very substantial and comPelling reasons" exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palPablY wrong: ii) The triai court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; iv) The entire approach of the triat court in dealing with ttre evidence was patently illegal; ' (zoog) ro scc +so 6 v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust arrd unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the matenal evidence or has ignored materia-l documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. 2 3 vii) Th;s [st is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. The appel)ate court must always give proper weight and consideratton o the findings ofthe trial court. If two re:rsonable views can be reached_ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction _the High Courts /appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused_''

12. In the case on hand it is already stated supra. the leaned tria-l Court alter considering the evidence of p.Ws_ 1 to 10 and Exs-D-l to D-7, rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecutiorr has faiied to prove the guiii for the oiience against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 3O4_A IPC by giving cogent findings. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by I he learnr:d tria-l Court.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the State faiis and is hereby rlismissed. 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. SDI.P.GOWRI SHANKAR EPUW REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// to'r. an" I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' H CTION OFFICER bad.(with records, if , ?il1 CCs to the Public Prosect*or' High Court for the State of Telangana at 3 liL; cfi;ilI nala copattavan Tavi' Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUT] Kam/PSL Y+- HIGH COURT DATED:28108t2025 i ,r.. a'- : "' j r,; :\'.r. ",ir \-^ i-1 0 3 ctrl zpf r,:'\ ( ) ORDER CRLA.No.821 ot 2O1S l. ,+., r' -^*,2 CNU|'--j2' DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL .,dA tu*