Iri Ravi Sharma v. State

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M Madhava Reddy The Court delivered the following: I TH}} HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JI'KANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.l 158 OF 2C17 JUDGMENT:, (:er l'he Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The State haLs frled the present appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respon<tents/Al & A2 for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 379 of thr Indiar Penal Code.

2. Heard ilri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fcrr tht: respondent State.

3. The proriecution case is that PW. 1 who is the rr: other of the deceased, nan rel1. Pinnapuralla Thakkayamma lodged a ,:omplaint on

15.09.2009. Lr th.e said complaint, she narrated that her son was missing for th,: past six days and he was last found going around with A1. On the brrsis of the complaint Iiled, the Police arrested Al and interrogated h m. .A.1 confessed that with the help of A2, trc committed the murder of the deceased and also his bike was sold to irW.6. On the basis of the c rnfession, the dead body was found by th,: Police. The scene of offen,:e 'ras photographed ald videographed. TlLereafter, the body was serLt for ,:onducting postmortem examination. P\V.10-Medical 2 Officer found.that he could not give any opinion as to how the death occurred since the body was in a highly decomposed state. The vehicle belonging to the deceased which is a mbtorcycle was recovered. The motorcycle was sold with the signature of A2 who signed it as Benjiman in the sale papers.

4. The learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses PWs.l to 14 and also placed reliance on Exs.Pl to P28 and M.Os. 1 to 5 ald found that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

5. The learned Sessions Judge found that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the following circumstances. i) The death of the deceased was homicidal. ii) The deceased was the owner of the motorcycle which was sold. iii) The last seen theory was proximate to the death.

6. Once prosecution fails to prove that tlle death was homicidal, the question of convicting a person under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code does not arise. The identity of the dead body was based on clothes found on the body. Nothing unusual or specific details are given regarding clothes enabling witnesses to identi$ that the body is that of the son of the complainant. No reasons are given as to why 3 DNA test was no1. done to identify the dead body. In th.e absence of proving beyon C reasonable doubt that the body belonged to the son of PW. l/complainarrt and that death was homicidal, the charge of murder fails

7. Iri Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anotherl, the Horr'ble Supreme Court held that while de aling with an appeal agains - acquittal, the appellate court has to cons,ider whether the trial Cour t's 'riew can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidenc, ) orr record has been analysed. The reascn is that an order of acquir tal ;rdds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused lhrrs, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the <,rde.: of the trial court rendering acquittal.

8. In Ghuretg Lal u. Stdte of Uttar Pradesh'the Hon'ble Supreme Court after r eferring to several Judgments regarding the settlei principles of ltw ;rnd the powers of appeliate Court in r-eversing the , order of acquit tal held at paraTO, as follows: "70. h. the light of the aboue, the HUh Court and other appellate Courts shot ld follotu the u.tell-settled pinciples crystallized by number of Judgment.s tf it is going to ouemtle or othenuise disturb the t.ial court's ocquiltal: I I t(2022) 8 Supreme (lo rn Ca;es 536 " (2008) 10 Supreme C rurt Cues 450 4 .1. Thc appellate court mag onlg ouerntle or ottLeruise disturb tte tial court's acquittal if it has 'uery substantial and. cnmpelling reasons" Jor doing so. . A number of instances arise in which the appellate court LDouA Laue "uery . substantial and compelling reosons" to discard tlLe trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exi,st when: i) The tiol court's conclusion usith regard- to the facts is palpablg ii) The trial court's decision u-tas based on an erroneous uieu-t of lnut; iii) The fial court's judgment is likelg to result in 'graue miscarriage of urong: justice"; iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing uith the euidence u.tas patently illeg al; u) The tial court's judgment LUas manifestlg unjust and. unreasonable; ui) The tnd court ho-s ignored the euidence or mi,sread the mateial euidence or Ltas ignored material documents like dging declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This ti-st i-s intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2- The appettate court must alu.tags giue proper uteight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If tuto reasonable uietus can be reached- one thot leads to acquitta\ tle other to conuiction the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the acansed. " 9 . There are no reasons which are compelling in nature to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge 1n acquitting the accused.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/. K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, l. The V Additional District Judge, Bhongir. (With records) 2. The Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Bhongir' :. The Station House Officer, Bhongir Rural Police Station, Bhongir 4. One CC to Sri M fvladhava Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies DL a l l' l l I HIGH COURT DATED:23l01/20 25 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1158 ot 2A17 :i 0'i , ji6 * f) ...; * f.r DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL