The High Court · 2025

Mudrina An.laneyulu Aka Anji, S/o. I"4udrina Narayana, Student of Teacher iirinino co'ursel Sririivasa ioliege Kadiri Ananiapur, R/o 9-248 V-enugopal Si;;;i 'N;lh ChirrJ Vittage and Mandal, Kadiri raluq. Anantapur District' Vardhi Ganesh Aka Gani, S/o. Vardhi Vemaiah, Quality Analyst in M/s i th;;J; iv6;ii iuoov co"tir.uitlons prt Ltd , tirupaini, R/6 . H No- e-!' N;;r Y;g;V;inJiefupte, Nalla Cheruvu Village ahd Mandal, Kadiri Taluq' Anantapur District. Gutti Naoabhushanam, S/o. Gutti Adrnarayana, Loom Weaver, R/o H'No' I E), P;'lrsr;; noio. ttatta cheruvu Villbge and Mandal Kadiri Taluq' Anantapur District. , ...Respodents/Accused Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 : Sri B S Venkata Ramesh Counsel for the Respondents Nos.2 to 3: --- i t !T BAIL sllP in crl.A.No. 244 ol 2016: The petitioner/ Accused was directed to be glggqgd on bail bv the order of rhe High Court dated.21-03-2016 in Crl.A.M.P.No.406 of 2C16 in Crt.A. No.244 of 2016 CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 244 OF 2016 . dated 18.02.20'16 passed in S.C.No.214 of 2:.014 on the file Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Hyderabad. Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.p.C , against the Judoment "of the Court 6f the Between: 9utti. Nagabhu:sh1nqm, S/o Gutti Adinarayana, Occ Handlooms Weaver, R/o. H No. 9-52, Pululgunda Road, Nallacheruvu Village and Uandat, kaOiri Taluq, Anantapr.rr District. AND The State of Telangana. rep. by Chikkapally, Hioh iourt Hilh i the P ourt B ublic Prosecutor. through SHO, pS., uildings. Hyderabad. ...Appellant ...RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Appeltant : Sri Aduri Chinna Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court deliVered the following: Common Judgment THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER . AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.14l4 OF 2OL7 tr,244 OF 2OL6 COMMON JUDGMENT: (pcr Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Swoder) Criminal Appeal No.1414 of 2Ol7 is filed by the appellant-State questioning the acquittal of the respondents/Al to A3 for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPCJ.

2. Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2076 is filed by the appellant/A3 questioning the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 41 1 of IPC.

3. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the judgment, dated 18.O2.2016, in S.C.No.214 of 2014 on the hle of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, they are disposed off by way of this common judgment.

4. Heard Mr. Amn Kumar Dodla, learned Additional the appellant-State and Public Prosecutor for I:S,J&JAK,J Ct'l.A.No't4l4 20t; &244 2016 ? Mr. B. S. Venkata Ramesh, leanred counsel for the accused.

5. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that pW. 1 ]odged cornplaint with the police on 05.09.2013 stating that the deceased, namely, Smt. Vallabhaneni Nagamani, resident of Bagh Lingampalty, was found dead in her house with her throat slit. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered crime No.329 of 2O 13 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The police went to the scene of offence and conducted the scene ol offence panchanama. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and from them MOs.1 to 5 were seized which according to the prosecution, were the jewellery worn by the deceased. On the basis of the recovery, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3O2, 3gO, l2O-8, 2O2 and 411 read with Section 34 of IPC against Al and A2 and for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC against ,{3.

6. Irarned Sessions Judge examined pWs. 1 to 19 and marked Exs.Pl to P27 and MOs. I to 5, which are the jewellery articles, along with MOs.6 to 9. Learned Sessions KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A.Nos.14l4 2017 &)44 2016 3 Judge found that not a single witness has stated about the accused being seen in the company of the deceased or any time prior to the dead body being found. The only evidence that was produced before the Court is the recovery of 'MO".l to 5. l,earned Sessions Judge further found that none of the witnesses were acquainted with the accused and did not state anything about accused having any relation with the deceased.

7. Basing on the recovery of the ornaments, at the instance of A2 and A3, coupled with the evidence of the witnesses of Manappuram Finance, where the gold was pledged, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A2 and A'3 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC for being in possession of theft articles.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor admitted that there is no evidence about the accused being found in the company of the deceased at any point of time, however, contended that recovery of MOs.1 to 5 can form basis to reverse the judgment of acquittal and to convict the accused and that there is no reason why the jewellery of I K.S,J&JAK,J Crl.ANos l4l4 201, &244 2016 { the deceased would be in possession of A2 and A3 unless they have committed murder of the deceased.

9. An5, presumption that can be drawn under Section .114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is to the extent of the accused being in possession of .jewellary, which was subjected to theft.

10. Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is extracted "That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession" 1 1. The recovery of jewellery i.e., MOs.l to 5, at the instance of A2 and A3, ca4 only be confined to presumption of the jewellery being stolen or recovered stolen goods. None of the witnesses have seen the accused at the scene. It is not even stated by the prosecution as to how the accused planned or murdered the deceased. For being in possession of stolen jewellery,. learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted .,4.2 and .,A,3 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A.Nos.l4l1 2017 &244 20 t6 -5

12. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raui Sharma u, State (Gooernment of NCT of Delhi) and anothef, held that while dealing with an appeal against the appellate court has to consider whether the .acquittal, 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 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.

13. ln Ghureg Lal a. State of Uttar Pradesh' 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 Htgh Court and other oppellate Courts should follow the well-settled pinciples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouemlle or othenuise disturb the tial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court mag onlg ouenule or otherunise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uerg substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. ' (2022) 8 supreme court Cases 536 ' (2oo8) 10 Supreme Court cases 450 K',J&J,IK,J (:fl./t-Nos.l4l4 20 I 7 1t244 2016 6 A number of instances aise in u.thich the appellate court utould hnue " uery substantial and mmpelling reasons,' to discard the tial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist uhen: palpablg u'rong: i) The tial court's conclusion u..tith regard to the facts ts ii) Tlrc tial court's decision tuas ltased. on an errorleous I iil) The tial court's judgment is likely to result in "qraue uiew of laut; mis car iag e of ju stice " ; it;) The entire approach of the trial courT in dealinq utth the euidence utas patently illegal; u) The tial courl's judgment uas manifestly unjust and unreasonable; tt)Tlte trial court has ignored. the eDidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents ltke dying declarations/ repott of the ballistic expert, etc. riifThis lisl is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. Tl'te appellate couft must alwaAs giue proper weight and consideration o the findtngs of the trial coutt. .1. If tluo reasonable uiews can be reached_ one thot leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the Htgh Courts/ appellate courts must tule in fauour of the accused."

14. The grounds raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor cannot form the basis to reverse the judgment of acquittal. Accepting the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at most, the evidence under Section 411 of IPC is made out. A.2 and A3 were already convicted for the said offence.

15. Keeping in view the fact that appellant/A3 in Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2016 is having dependants to look after and there being no other questionable KS, J &JAK, J Crl A.Nos.l4l4 2017 &244 2016 7 antecedents, the imprisonment of two years for the offence under Section 411 of IPC is reduced to one vear.

16. Accordingly, Criminal , dismissed. Criminal Appeal Appeal No.1414 of 2017 is No.244 of 2016 is partly allowed. I I Criminal Appeals shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The lX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, chanchalguda, Hyderabad' 4. Two Cis to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri B S Venkata Ramesh, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Aduri Chinna Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies ADK \c\/ I HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1414 of 2017 AND 244 OF 2}rc ...:-\. o\1 f t1L (- + ,tto ,] 25APnm * P4t c DISMISSING THE CRLA.No.1414 ot 201T and PARTLY ALLOWTNG THE CRLA.No.244 of 2016 10 ,dil X^"'