In Ghureg La.l v. State of Uttar prad.esft, the Hon,ble Supreme Court, after referring to several J

The State of A.P , rep by the Public Prosecutor' High court of A P, HYderabad' ...APPellanUPetitioner AND

1. 2 , 4 Rakshale Babu Rao @ Bapu Rao' S/o Rajobha' 48 years' Rakshale Raju, S/o Babu Rao' 20 years' Rakshale Namdev, S/o' Nagnath' 30 years Rakshale Venkat Rao, S/o Maruthi Rao' 28 years' All are Agriculturists R/o Kamalapur (V) of Manoor Mandal' Medak District ...RespondenUAccused Counsel for the Appellant: Mr' M' Vivekananda Reddy' Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Mr' Palle Sriharinath The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT /,, () ,,,, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL JUDGMENT: NO .10620F20t2

1. Crinrinal Appeal No.1062 of 2072 is; fi1s4 by the appellant-state', challenging the judgment dared 2i .06.2oor. passed in SC,1ST S.C.No.26 of 2006 by the jearned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/S,I (pOA) Act-cum-V Adrlitional District and Sessions Judge, .\4edak at Sangaredd.r. 2 Hearc Mr.. M. Vivekananda Reddy, leartred l\ss;istant Public prosrecutor, appearing for the appellant_Stzrte, and Mr. Palle Sirihzrrinath, learned counsel appearlng fo r the respondents.

3. The czrse rf the prosecution is that the comprlat nan t a Telrrgu written complaint against the lodged respondents,/ accused Nos.1 to 4 on 22.OB.2OOS 4. in the saiC complaint, the complainant stated that there were trvo incidents, firstly, on 27.O8.2OO5, accrrsecl No.2 allegedl,/ beat the complainant,s daughter, and againron the neXt da1 , i.e ., on 22.08.2005, all the accused atta.ked the complainant and others at his house and abused them using hlthy language. 5 On the basis of the complaint filed, police filed a chargesheet against the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 4. 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were exarnined, Exs.pl to p6, and M.O.1 were marked. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence, but Ex.Dl was marked, which is a contradiction in the evidence of pW.S. 7. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4, mainly on the ground that the entire version given by PW. 1 in his chief-examination was a complete omission in the earlier statement (Ex.P1-complaint) given to the police. 8. The improvement made by pW. 1 was denied during his cross-examination, however, it was proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 9. The leatned Sessions Judge found that .accused No.2 abusing PW.5 in the narne of her caste was an omission on the second date of the incident, and the narration that accused No.2 had beaten PW. 1's daughter at the site of the house was also an omission. 'i r\

10. The learned Sessions Judge further found that the manner in whi<:h the incident happened, such asJquer''tioning PW. 1, foJlorvtng them, and attackihg them, trv(lre a'tl omissions irL the 161 Cr.P.C. statement arrd the Ex.P1-conrpla nt.

11. In view o1'the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6, who are all family members of one family, and their narration in Court L'eing an improvement irom the earlier statement, 1.heir irrrproved version in Cor.rrt cannot be relied on to convict the ztc<rused.

12. The rear;oning given by the learned Sessions -udge is based on lhe -ccord.

13. In caser; of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Clourt in Raui Sharmct a. State (Goaernrnent of NCT of Delhi) and dnothe/ helC that while dea,ling with an appeal against acquittal, thc appellate Court has to consider r,'hel.her the trial Cou rt's view can be termed as a poss;ib [e one, particularly rvhen evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that, an order of acquittal adds upr to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused Thus, I (2022) 8 Supr3rne Cc.rrt Cases 536 the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the triai Court rendering acquittal. 74. In Ghureg La.l v. State of Uttar prad.esft, the Hon,ble 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 paraTO as follows: ., '7O. In__the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should. follou thi u.,ell-settled_ pinciples crysta ized b,y number of Judgments if it is going to ouerruIe or othentise d.isiurb tie tii court,s acquittal: -. 1, The appellate court maA only ouerntle or othentise disturb the tial court's acquitt"t ty il n", "uery substantiat and compelling reasons" for d_oing so. A number of instances arise in u,thich the appellate court tuould haue *uery substantial and. coipelling reasons" to di^scard the tial court,s d.ecision. "V"rv substantial and. compelling reasons" exist uthen: i) The trial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts ii) The tial court's decision was based on an iti)The tial courl's judgment is likelg to result in "graue mbcanriage of justice"; . - iu) The entire approoch of the tial court in dl:allng u) The tial court's judgment tDas manifestly unjust utith the euidence utas patentlg illegal; erroneous uieut of laut; is palpablg turong: and unreaso nable; ui)The triol court hiTs ignored the euidence or misread. the mateial euidence or has ignored material documents like dging declaration-s/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. Th:s list is intended to be illustratiue, not uii) exhaustiue. ' 120081 l0 Supren,e Court Cases 450

2. The appellate court must aluags Qiue p'76pst' ueight anrT consid-erotion o the Jindings of the tial court' 3. lJ troo reasonable uieus can be reached- on"' that lead:; tL acquittal, the other to conuiction High Courts/ oppellate courts must ntle in fctuour o-i the acctLsed. '' -tle

15. Thr: s,itnesses, PWs.1 to 6, have giv{ln an lmproved trial Court durin5r their version before the cross-exrlmittation. As rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge, tJre irrproved version in Cou-rt cannot serv(l zrs a basis to fincl t.he accused guilty. The version glven in Court is entirell, diff,:rent from what was earlier stated in trx'Pl' There are no compelling reasons to interfere rvith the finding of the learnec[ Sessions Judge while acquittirtg ther ar]cused. t6. Cr:mirai Appeal No.1062 of 2Ol2 is accordingly dismisse cl. Miscel aneous applications pending, if any, sha11 stand dismisse d. //TRUE COPY// 'sDl-'(5arr-esttl- JOINT REGISTRAR ' \', I 'J SECTION OFFICER ,'/' To,

1. The Specia Judge for Trial of offences U-ndei SC/ST(PoA) Act-cum-V Jr;ge, Medak at Sangareddy (with Additionat [)istrict and ;;;.;". records, if a rY)

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at 3 ij;; C i; tur patte Sriharinath, Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CCt Copies Hvderabad iOUTl kam/ghw k=dEq-+FiE..@-=€ErE :ac! G@t'*4F- \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ,c) $t $\ .t \\ -:. :.i r711;P q7 \\:_+_.CE?- JUDGMENT CRLA.No,.1A62 ot 2012 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL + ."sd &r*