The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: MD FASEEHUDDIN SOHEB (No representation) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1570 of 2OL7 JUDGMENT: This crirninal appeal has been fiIed aggrieved by the judgrnent passed by the learned vrl Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in S.c. No.86O of 20 1 5, dated 16 .OS .2O IZ , where under respondent No.1/accused No. 1 was acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 3o7 , 3Tg, 435 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (for short 'lpc) and Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and respondent No.2/accused No.2 was acquitted for the offence under Section 435 of IPC. 2- Hcard Sri M.vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State. No representation on behalf of the respondents/accused Nos- 1 and 2 in ttre rnorning session and in the afternoon session either physically or virtually.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 14.LL-2o14 at 22-20 hours Sri Kancharla Sainath Reddy, Pc-4ozo lodged a cornpraint in which he stated that on +\s 2 I4.LL.2OL4 at 8-2O PM they saw a person moving on a numberless PULSAR motor cycle near More Supermarket side, Snehapuri Colony, wearing a helrnet, and on suspicion, he and LW2 B. Jagan Mohan, PC 5736 followed hirn and passed on inforrnation to LW3 E.Prasad Reddy, PC 4935. knmediately LW3 joined them and LW1 and LW2 waylaid accused No.l by stopping nurnberless motorcycle and when tried to catch him, accused No.l took or. t the knife and threatening LW l and LW2 not to approach accused No.1 and in the rneantirne LW3 camght hold tLre accused No.l from backside. But accused No.l rnanaged to release from LM/3 and stabbed LW3 on his left shoulder causing severe bleeding injury and accr-.sed No.1 took the Karizrna rnotorcycle and fled away from the scene. Accused Nos.l and 2 took the stolen vehicle to an isolated area beside Shiva Goshala, at the outskirts of Palmakula Village and br- rnt away the stolen vehicle. Basing on tkre said complaint, ttre present case was registered for the offence under Section 3O4-B of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sh.eet against the accused Nos.7 and 2 for the aforesaid offences. ' r' ,2 a 3 4- On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, PWs. 1 to 1 1 were exarnined and Ex.Pl to PlO were marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were exarnined, however, Exs.D1 to D5 were rnarked. The trial Court after taking into consid.eration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, acquitted respondents for the offences with which they were charged.

5. Aggrievecl by tkre above said judgrnent, the State frled the present Appeal.

6. Learned Assistant Fublic Prosecutor subrnitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences by producing tkre oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge wittrout properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record erroneously acquitted the accused Nos. I and 2. He further subrnitted that PW.3, who is the injured person, specifically stated in his evidence tkrat when he tried to camght hold accused No.1 frorn back side, he hit hirn with knife on his left shoulder and he fled away by taking Karizrna rnotorcycle of PW.l. 4 (i In the absence of any contrary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.3 and acquitted the accused persons. The impugned judgrnent passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is contrar5r to law and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, acctlsed Nos.1 and 2 ate liable to be convicted for the offences with which they were charged.

7. Having considered the subrnissions rnade by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after pemsal of the irnpugned judgrnent, it reveals that basing upon the complaint lodged by PW.1 dated 14.l-l.2OL4, t}:le present crime was registered. Even accord,ing to the allegations rnade in the complaint, accused No.1 rnoving on a numberless rnotorcycle and when LWs.l and 2 tried to stop hirn, he took the knife and threatened them and in the rneantime, LW.3 caught hold accused. No.1 frorn back side, b]. t accused No. 1 rnanaged to release frorn LW.3 and stabbed" LW.3 on his left shoulder ca1.sing severe bleeding injury and accused No.1 took the Karizrna motorcycle of PW.l and fled away from the scene. Even according to prosecution, the incident took place on L4.Ll.2O: 4 and. accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended by PW.IO on 5 L.L2.2O|4 i.e. nearly after one rnonth. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.l to 11 were examined and Exs.Pl to PlO were rnarked. On behalf of defence, Exs.Dl to D5 were rnarked. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to conclusion that the police have not seized the pulsar rnotorcycle frorn the scene. Adrnittedly, even according to tkre evidence of PW.3, accltsed No.1 left the pulsar rnotorcycle at the scene and left the scene on Karizrna rnotorcycle of PW. 1. Even according to PW. 1, accrrsed No.1 stabbed LW.3 and left the scene on Karizrna motorcycle and the Fulsar motorcycle was not seized by the police. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge while relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon'lcle Apex Court in Gurbachan Singtr ws. State of Bihar with Raj Pal Sharrna vs. State of Biharl and C.Muniappan and others vs. State of Tarnil Nadu2, specifically held that the test identification parade is very irnportant. In the case on hand, PW. 1 1 in his evidence has specihcally adrnitted that he has not conducted the test identification parade to identify the suspect involved on the date of offence. ' t99S Supplt) SCC 80 'AIR20loscl7r8\ \- , t.l r', B. Insofar as the other allegation levelled against accLrsed. No.1 for the offence under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act is concerned, the prosecu.tion has not taken any prior sanction, as required under Section 39 of the Arms Act to invoke Section 25(1)(A) of tLre Arms Act. Further the learned Assistant Sessions Judge relied upon the principle laid down by the erstwhite High Court of Andhra prad.esh in Ahrned Bin salam and others vs. state of Andtrra Pradesh3, wherein it was held that the sanction under Section 39 of the Act to invoke the offence under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arrns Act is rnandatory. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rightly corne to conclusion that the prosecution has miserabiy failed to connect the accursed persons with this crirne- g. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Col.rt in Ravi sharrna v. state (Gowernment of NCT of Delhi) and anothera, held. thrat while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the 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 acqqittal adds up 'zotllzl ALD (cri) 6 4 (202218 Supreme Court Cases 536 i, I I : ! I tI I I I t 1 i I d u 4 7 to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thr,r.s, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal.

10. In Gl.urey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradeshs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring 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 follolvs: "7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and 'other appeltate Courts should. follow the uell-settled. principles crystallized bA number of Judgments if it is going to ouerntle or othenttise disturb the trial cottrt's acquittal: 1 . Tlrc appellate court rnaA only oudrntle or othenttise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has ,,uerg substo.ntial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of tnstances arise in uhtch the appellate court would haue ouerg substantial and compelling reasorls" to dtscard the trial cottrt's decision. *Very substarutial and compellirtg reo-sorts" exist when: facts is palpablA urong: i) Tlrc tial court's conclusion with regard to the i0 The trtal court's decision was based orl arl iii) The trial court's judgmenf is tikelg to result in en'orteous uietu of latu; "graue miscarriage of justice" ; iv) Ttrc entire approach of the trial court in deating with the euidence was patentlg iltegal; v) The trial court's judgrruent was mantfestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The tictl court has ignored the euidence or misread. the material euidence or has ignored material doanrnents like dging declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court must alwags giue proper s (2008) 10 scc 450 \ \ 8

3. uteight and. consideration to the findings of the trtal court. If two reasoruable uiews carl be reaclted one that lead.s to acquittal, the other to conuiction -the High Courts/ appellate courts must ntle in fauour of the a"ccrtsed." 1 1. In view of several discrepancies and the principles laid down by the Honlcle Supreme Court 5upra, this Court is of the considered view that ttre prosecu.tion has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and. the court below has rightly acquitted the accLtsed and there are no grounds to interfere with the irnpugned judgment passed by ttre learned Assistant Sessions Judge and tkre appeal is liable to be dismissed. L2 Accordingly, the criminal appeal is disrnissed Pending rniscellaneolls applications, if &oY, shall stand closed SDI- T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Additional Assistant Sessions Judge' 2. !TSt3t5 illi" pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at at L.B.Nagar. (with HYderabad [OUT]

3. ONC CC tO SRI MD FASEEHUDDIN SOHEB' AdVOCAtE NONE APPCTAEd loPUCl

4. Two CD CoPies A*), NVB/pst HIGH COURT DATED i1311112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1570 of 2017 () () t * S;," ).., 0 I JAN ?Uzil ,a?V DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \ \,t