In Rawi Sharma v. State

counser for the Apperant: sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additionar pubric prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court detivered the following JUDGMENT: ...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE IIOIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL NUMAR JUISNTI APPEAL N0.985 0F 2017 JUDGMENT: ger The Hon,ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The State has filed tJle present appeal questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Arun Kumar Dodla, rearned Additional pubric prosecutor for the respondent State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that pW. 1 who is son of the deceased, lodged a complaint with the police stating that on 16.ll.2ot4 at about 9'oo p'm. he received a phone ca, from pw.2 who is his uncre that his mother (deceased) was k,red by his father (accused). According to PW. 1, five days prior to the incident, the moneylender namely Purushottram had taken both his mother and father i.e. the deceased and the accused for grazing his goats. pw. 1 went to the scene and found his mother dead. pW.l suspected that his father would have killed the deceased due to fam,y disputes. on the basis of the complaint, the circle Inspector of police went to the scene and prepared scene of offence panchanama. Statements of witnesses were recorded. 2 The Police held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination' the accused was apprehended and he confessed to proiecution is that on the Or 27.L1.2O14, have killed his '.r''ife. F\.rrther, the case of day of incident, the accused went to the chowrasta of Modela village where the villagers were chitchatting arrd informed PWs'4 and 5 that he "tre has killed his wi[e.

4. On the basis of the information given by the accused to PWs'4 and 5 regarding his committing murder of his wife and also on the basis of other circumstances, charge sheet was laid under Section 302 of IPC.

5. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused on the foliowing grounds: i) PWs.4 and 5 stated that the accused went to the Chowrasta in between 6.O0 zrnd 6.3O p.m' however, the approximate time of death according to postmortem report is 6'OO to 8'OO p'm'' as such evidence of PWs.4 and 5 cannot be believed' ii) If PWs.4 and 5 were informed about the death by accused' there is no reason as to why their names were not reflected in the complaint nor did they inform to the Po.lice or pW. l. 3 iii) PW' 13-Investigating officer did not investigate about any kind of motive for accused to commit murder of his wife. iv) PWs'l to 3 and 7 stated before the court that the deceased and the accused were cordial and quarreled once or twice. Such between spouses is common. quarrel v) None of the witnesses have seen the accused and the appellant together prior to the incident. However, vi) M.O.4 which is a stick, was recovered from the hut of the deceased. it was not proved that the death was caused by M.O.4_stick, even according to pW. 1 l_Investigating Officer and the FSL report_ Ex.P4.

6. In Rawi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anotherl' the Hon'bre Supreme court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, ttre appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when e'ridence 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 ofthe trial court rendering acquittal. t 12022; 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 7 ln Glutreg Lat a' State of tlttor Pradesil' the Hon'ble Supreme Court after refering to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law arrd the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, heici at para 70' as ioilows: .70. In the tight of the aboue, the High court an-d' other appellate courts slauld fo ortt tne uletti-settted pinciples crystallized bg number of or other-ttise disturb the tial court's Judgments if it it gti;; ;;" """'*'" acqrtittal: ""a *'""1it uronq:

1. The oppellate court maY onlg ouemtle or oth'enuise disatrb the tial compelling reosons" for doing allse in urhich the appellate court tltould ltaue cdrd the tiat court' s 7k b the facts is palpablg court's ocquittal if it nas "ueiZitii"ii so. ",.; K:::,,1!,'Tll""Jl*;;' tiii' " o'o n' " to' iJ"it r*.-"u"n, substantial a'nd' compelling reasons" eist tthen: *"i'"""tr iti "go'a .-^ L^--A ^n nn .2rroneot/s uieut of law; rn" Iial courl's decision was based on an erronl i) The tial ""n'' iiilrhe triot ,.ou'r'' i'ffi#i" ftrtif ii'-Ii in "sroue miscaniage of h of the trial court in deoling ruth the euidence r':Ns!!un'' i'a'*nt uas manifesttg unjust and' unreosonabte ; ui) The tial .:oun no!'iino'J{'it-"ia""ie or' misread the material titce dging d'eclarations/ repori trtstice"; -" o;'";# iD) The enttre aPqroacl euid.ence or has ignored ^'^::;';dt;;ents of the ballisic exqert' etc' ' ""'iri'i"j.lt" t'it int"ndtd to be illustratiue'":'::y":'iu' -roil"*tion o'tie fndings of the tial courl' acquittal, the other * t""'iiiil" ru{e in fauout of tlLe accused'"

2. The appellate ciurt must ahtags giue proper uteight and 3. If tu;o r"a'onabti"L:;;;';;;- i" regctwd- one ttat tea'ds to u'gn Courts/ appeltate @urts must -'i"

8. The version of PWs'4 and 5 that the accused confessed before them about murdering his wife cannot be believed' since the time of information given to them and the time of death according to '12008; l0 sl]p."me Cr.un Cases 450 5 postmortem examirlation do not tally. Though, the stick allegedly used to beat the deceased was recovered' however' PW'll stated that there was nothing to show that M'O'4-stick was used to kill the deceased on the basis of the FSL report-Ex'P14' g . There is no direct or indirect evidence to remotely suggest that it was the accused who caused the death of his wife by beating her with a stick. Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof' 10. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below in acquitting the accused'

11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed' /ITRUE COPY/' Sd/- K. SRIN IVASA RAO TREGISTRAR J ECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge' Family Court' i:i'#'39?sorreransanaa'i itr,{$',,:Hifi'";ff "1""::?tr':"fdil"3"?'ft VH/glt @A 6 THE HONOURAETLE SRI WSTICE K.SUREIITDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRi JUSTICE AIIIL KUMAR JUI(AIITI c No .985 OF 20L7 Date : O2.O I 5 f ( HIGH COUR'T DATED: O2tA1nO2S rlF. 1 HE S14 I4: q C + 21 FtB 2025 o t ,+ Dr: ]- r)/.'r,- '11:Cr JUDGMENT CRLA.No.985 of 2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL b d w