In Ravi Sharma v. State

Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P Sumalatha The Court delivered the following Judgment : I ! l 1 I r, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND'- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL ,cRIMINAL APPEAL No.1547 0F 20L7 JTIDGMENT: (pel The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeal is hled by State aggrieved by the acquit tal recorded by the IX Addit onal District and Sessions Judge, Warraparthy, in SC.No.97 of 2Oli, dated 06.0T.2O1.T, for the offences uncler Sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal code against 41 and unrler sections 41 1 and 414 of I:-rdian Penal Code against A2.

2. Heard Sri t).Arun Kumar, learned Additional public prosecutor.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on lZ.A2.2Ol,tl, the dead body of the de,:t:ased was found in a pool of blood by pW.3_papi Reddy, who informed the same to pW. 1- son of the deceased. pW. 1 went there and found the deceased in a pool ol- blood. pW. 1 also found cut injury on the throat of the deceased and also that gold ornaments were missing. The body was sent for postmortem examination. Pw 14 postmortem doctor found two stab "injuries on the left side of ttre neck of the deceased resurting in her death. on 17.O2.2O74 at 13.30 A.M., complaint was Iilect by pW. 1. On 2

18.03.2014, Accused No.l was arrested and on the basis of his confession, Accused No.2 was iasrt d-ds the person who was in possession of the jewellery of the deceased. A2 pledged the gold jewellery and obtained loan. Both A1 and A2 were arrested.

4. ihe learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants mainly on the following grounds. i) There is no direct evidence to implicate A1 and A2 and the entire evidence is based on circumstantial evidence. ii) The independent witnesses PWs.S to 8 turned hostile to the prosecution case and the Public Prosecutor did not elicit any information from the witnesses. iii) The evidence of PWs.9 to 16 who stated about the ornaments being recovered cannot be made basis to infer that the murder was committed by A1 and consequently, the jewellery was also taken away. iv) Pws.12 and 13 are the witnesses to the seizure whose evidence is contradictory and no reliance can be placed on both the tdtnesses to conclude that jewellery was seized at the instance of the accused' ' :iTEE-*"" 3

5. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and aaothetl, the l{on'ble Supreme Coi[Eefa that wtLile dea.ling with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has tr> consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reasorr is that an order of acqrritl-a I adds up to the presumption of innocen.ce in favour of the accused. 'lhus, the appellate court has to b. relatively slow in reversing the orcer of the trial court rendering acqtrittal.

6. ln Ghureg Lal v. State of Uttar pradesh, 1.he Hon'ble Supreme Courl. after referring to several Judgments re garding the settled principles of law and the powers of :rppellatr: Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para TO, as follow::i: '70. In tLe light of the aboue, the High Court ancl other appellate Courts shou.lct, .,.ollotl the uelt-settted pinciples crystalliz:ed bg r,.umber of Judgments iJ it is going to ouemtle or othentLise d.isturLt the ti:tl court,s acquittal:

1. The cppellate court mag onlg ouentt"le or othertaise dl:;turb the ot ctuittal if it has ,,uery substantial ancl cor|pelling reasons,, -cour1's for doing .so. A numb,",r of instances aise in uthiclt the appelldte cou4 uould. haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to cliscard_ the tial court's d-ecision "Very substantial and" compelling reasons" eist u)hen: i) The ttittl court's conclusion uith regard to the Jacts is palpabty urong: I I \ I (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 516 '(2008.1 l0 Supreme Courr -rses 450 4 ...! . ii) The tial court's decision uas based on an erroneous uieu of laut; of justice": iii) The trial court's judgment ii?ireTg:to result in "graue miscarriage iu) The entire approach of tlLe triol court in dealing uith tlle euidence u.tas patentlg illegal; u) The tial court's judgment u)as manifestlg unjust and unreasonable; ui) The tial court ha-s ignored the euidence or misread the mateial lta,s ignored nateial documents tike dging euidence or ddclarations/ report of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc. uii)This tist i.s intended to be illustratiue, not exhaustiue. 2. The appellate court must alu-tays giue proper u-teight and considerotion o the findings of tLE trial court.

3. If tulo reosonable uieuts can be reached- one that leads to High Courts/ oppellate courts nulst acquittol, the other to cottuiction rule in fauour of the acatsed. " -the

7. There are no reasons which are compelling in nature to interfere with the frnding of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, which are reasonable, probable and based or1 record. In the said circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the lbarned Additional Sessions Judge, in acquitting the accused

8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFIGER To,

1. The lX Additional District & Sessions Judge' Wanaparthy (with records' if any) 2. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri P Sumalatha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies w HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1547 of 2017 oR THE ,f 11 t O U. a o '+ l ?t ilAi a fCi.r f ! 01 n25 a v DISMISSING THE CRLA f