In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh Ram Naresh

3 Palle Srinivas, S/o. Ananthaiah, age 22 years, Occ. Factory Workers, R/o Ambedkar Colony, New Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal ... Res po n d ents/ac c used counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: ... The Court delivered the following: I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1646 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: $er Hon'bte Sri Justice K.surentler) The appeal is preferred by the State, against the acquittal of respondents/accused for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 1PC').

2. Heard Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State and none appeared for res pondents/ accused.

3. According to the case of prosecution, PWI who is mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint on 14.01.2014 stating that her son Kranthi Kumar (deceased) left the housc stating that hd was going to meet accused No.1, who resided as a tenant in their house ald did not return home. PW I tried to reach out to deceased on phone, however, his phone was once answered by a stranger and immediately switched off. On 14 .Ol .2014 , PW 1 was informed that her son was murdered and his dead body was found at barren land of Padigan Cherul,u. In the complaint, PWl expressed suspicion that accused Nos.l to 3 would have killed the deceased on I I I I 2 account of alleged illicit intimacy of the deceased with wife of accused No. 1.

4. The Police on the basis of complaint filed by PW I , started investigation. During the course of investigation, after completing the scene of offence panchanama and also inquest proceedings, the body was sent for post mortem examination. The investigating officer arrested the accused Nos.l to 3 on 2l.Ol.2ol4. Pursuant to their confession, trxs.Pl7 to P19 t confession proceedings were drafted. MO.7 cell phone was seized from the possession of accused No.2. Further, at the instance of accused No.2, MOs.8 and 9 were seized, which are T-shirt and jean pants. After the seizures were effected at the instance of accused No.1, Police went to house which was leased out to accused No. 1. MOs.14 and 15 which are wearing pant :and shirt of the accused and motor bikes allegedly used in the commission of offence were also seized.

5. Learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses PWs.l to 21, marked Exs.Pl to 34 and MOs.1 to 21.

6. Having gone through the evidence, the case is one of circumstantial evidence. There is only one circumstance which was proved by the prosecution, i.e., the evidence of 3 PW16 Branch Manager about accused No.2 enquiring regarding the amount lying in the account of PWl. The said circumstance though creates a doubt, however, it is not sufficient to say that it is a connecting link to lind the accused guilty. Learned Sessions Judge further found that all the witnesses on prosecution side did not support the case of the prosecution during tria-l. On account of the hostility of the witnesses, I he accused were acquitted. 7 . lrarned Public Prosecutor would submit that according to the prosecution the deceased was having an affair with the rvife of accused No.l, for which reason accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired and committed murder of the deceased. The intimacy between deceased and wife of accused No.1.1s strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution which was overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge.

8. It is evident from the record that the motive as suggested by the prosecution is based on suspicion. Even according to the witnesses, there was never aly complaint that was made by accused No.l or any quarrel that took place in between the accused No.l and the deceaSed. Both the accused No.l and his wife were staying as tenants in the .i., ,, ,/ 4 house of Pwlii.e., mother of deceased. At no point of time, PW1 narrated that accused No.t had either admonished or confronted the deceased regarding the alleged intimacy in between the deceased and wife of accused No. 1 .

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherlq Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddg ,t. State of Andhra Prqdeshl ineld as follows: "15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. [t can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court. However, if the High Court decided to depart from the conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attentlon to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state the reasons as to why it linds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by the hndings of the trial court;: (ii) the accused is entitled to benefrt of arly doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses. The cnrx of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given by the trial court." 1 (2006) 11 scc 444 a 5

10. In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu u. State of Kerala2 l:,eld as follows:

12. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that an "order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the flnger towards the accused."

13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Barne alias Baijnath & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 2711, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be tustified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances includes: i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage ofjustice; iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and lacts on the record of thc case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court; vi) This Court would be extremely reluctalt in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. 2 c,t.A.No. t0<709, dated 11.08.2010 6 1 1. As alreaily discussed, the motive aspect is based on suspicion. The dead body was aiready found by PW1 and others. It is not the case that the body was either discovered at the instance of the accused or any person had last seen the accused in the company of the deceased.- i

72. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge.

13. Accordingly, criminal appeal is dismissed. SD/- K SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER (With records, if anY) t The Principal Distrlct and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. 2 lthe Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy 3 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two CD Copies DL\PSL \ I - ,4I c.. 1 i'i M i\f ii 4-o \.'{. * q_O l) Iit'A1 c, HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1646 ot 2017 i) DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL @6+ -* 8u.'