Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs ) Heard Sri. Mangena Sree Rama Rao on 8 November, 2022
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2015
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)
1) Heard Sri. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Victim and Sri. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. No representation on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
2) The present Appeal is filed against the Judgment, dated 06.01.2015, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, in Sessions Case No. 666 of 2011, wherein, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted of all the charges, namely, Sections 148, 302, 427 Indian Penal Code ['I.P.C.'].
3) The facts, in issue, are as under: i. The evidence on record establishes land disputes
between Nersu Venkata Krishna @ Venkata Ramana Yadav @ Ramana ['deceased'] and Accused No.1. The disputed land is to an extent of Acres 3.38 Cents in 2 R.S. No. 114/3 of Karicherlagudem Village belonging to one Nersu Krishna Murthy, who executed an Agreement of Sale in favor of Accused No.1 after receiving some sale consideration. It is said that, Accused No.1 and his Son did not obtain the registered sale deed by paying the balance sale consideration and after lapse of 20 years i.e., in the year 2009, one Nersu Krishna Murthy, settled the property with life interest in favor of the deceased. Basing on the Settlement Deed, the deceased tried to take possession of the land from Accused No.1, who has been in possession.
ii. While things stood thus, on 25.03.2010, the Accused hatched a plan to kill the deceased and were waiting at the disputed land for the arrival of the deceased. It is said that, on that day, one Nersu Raju, who is examined as PW3, and who is the son of elder brother of the deceased, went to the fields of Karicherlagudem and was collecting firewood near the disputed land. Accused No.2 restrained him and asked to inform the deceased. Pursuant thereto, the information was given over phone to the deceased, who informed the same to PW1 and 3 brother of PW3. PW1 is said to have gone to the Police Station and lodged a report, which lead to registration of a case in Crime No.41 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. Thereafter, PW1l along with others proceeded to the disputed land by collecting the deceased. All the Accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly armed with knives and sticks and restrained PW3.
iii. It is said that, when the Head Constable and a Constable proceeded towards PW3, the Accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately on the face, chest and legs, causing bleeding injuries. When the Head Constable [PW9] and others shouted, all the Accused escaped. Later on, PW9 along with others shifted the injured [deceased] to Primary Health Center, Gopalapuram, with the assistance of PW1 and PW4. At about 11.30 A.M., the deceased was declared dead, which resulted in setting the law into motion by PW1 at 1.00 P.M., by lodging a report with Sub-Inspector of Police [PW11].
4iv. Basing on the report of PW1, PW11 registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and informed the Inspector of Police [PW13], who in receiving Ex.P13 [First Information Report], proceeded to the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared a rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P8 is the Scene Observation Report and Ex.P16 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He, then, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars. Ex.P9 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest, the body was sent for post-mortem examination, where, PW6, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P6 the post-mortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to cranial, cerebral injury.
v. On receiving credible information, PW13 along with
mediators and staff reached Bus Stop of
Jagannadhapuram Village and arrested the Accused on 5 26.03.2010. Pursuant to their confession, they left Jagannadhapuram along with Accused to Karicherlagudem, and discovered the weapons used in the crime.
vi. Later, PW14 - Inspector of Police, after collecting all the necessary material, filed a charge-sheet, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 52/2013 on the file II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur. In the said charge-sheet, Accused No. 4 was shown as 'juvenile' and, as such, cognizance was taken only against Accused No. 1 to 3 and Accused No. 5 to 7. Thereafter, pursuant to Orders passed in Crl. M.P. No.2004 of 2013 and Crl. M.P. No. 2005 of 2013, Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were directed to be produced before Juvenile Justice Board. The prosecution after sending Accused Nos. 5 and 6 to the Juvenile Justice Board filed a fresh charge-sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7.
6
4) On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, beside marking MO.1 to MO.11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied, but, however did not adduce any oral evidence in support of their plea, except marking Ex.D1 to Ex.D42.
6) Having regard to the contradictions, improvements and embellishments, in the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the Accused. Challenging the same, the Victim herein, who is the Wife of the deceased, 7 preferred the present Appeal, under Section 372 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
7) (i) Sri. Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Victim, mainly submits that, though, there are eye witnesses to the incident and the evidence of PW3, PW4 coupled with the evidence of PW9 [Head Constable] and PW10, proves beyond doubt the case of the prosecution. According to him, the documents marked in 'D' series, though in large number, but, a close perusal of the same does not dispute the case of the prosecution.
(ii) He would further contend that, discrepancies and omissions, which are referred to by the learned Sessions Judge, are minor in nature, which do not go to the root of the case. He took us through the evidence of witnesses in support of his contention.
8) As there is no representation on behalf of the Accused, we directed the learned Public Prosecutor Sri. Y. Nagi Reddy, to assist the Court. He took us through the Judgment, under challenge, and also the evidence available on record. 8
9) As seen from the material available on record, two crimes came to be registered. Crime No. 41 of 2010 came to be registered in respect of an incident, which happened prior to the incident in question, namely, about wrongful restrainment of PW3. The second crime, namely, Crime No. 42 of 2010 relates to the incident in question.
10) It appears that, by resorting to this process of registering two crimes and adducing evidence in respect of both the crimes, lapses in investigation have occurred, which lead to marking of 42 defence documents. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has created a vast play field for the Defense Counsel to take advantage of the lapses in investigation, appears to be correct.
11) The fact that, it is a case of homicidal case is not in dispute. It may not be necessary for us to refer to the evidence in support of the same.
12) Coming to the incident in question, namely, the involvement of the Accused in the crime, it is to be noted that, on the date of incident, i.e., 25.03.2010 in the morning hours, the Accused gathered at the disputed site hoping to put an 9 end to the deceased, in case if he arrives there. But, in-stead of the deceased, his son [PW3] went to the said place for collection of firewood. All the Accused restrained PW3 in order to bring the deceased to the disputed land. But, on receipt of information about the wrongful restrainment of his brother [PW3], PW1 gave a report, which lead to registration of Crime No. 41 of 2010. Then the Police party along with PW1 and deceased proceeded towards the disputed land, where the incident in question took place, which lead to registration of Crime No. 42 of 2010 of Gopalapuram Police Station.
13) The lapses, as stated earlier, starts with registration of Crime No. 41 of 2010. A perusal of the record would show that, the certified copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.41 of 2010, which is marked as Ex.D1, reads as if PW1 is the author of it. But, after the thumb impression in the report it is mentioned as 'thumb impression of PW3', which was subsequently struck of and the name of PW1 was mentioned as if he is the author. As stated earlier, the case of the prosecution is that, it was PW1, who lodged the report, which lead to registration of Crime No.41 of 2010, but, PW1 in his evidence admits that he is not the author of the report. His version is totally different 10 from the prosecution case. He in his evidence deposed as if there was some land disputes between Accused No. 1 and deceased and deceased informed him about receiving phone call from PW3; that the deceased went to Gopalapuram Police Station and reported about the incident to Head Constable and a Constable, who were examined as PW9 and PW10. He further deposed about himself and PW4 following the car on a motorcycle and when the Accused started hacking the deceased, they escaped leaving the motorcycle.
14) In the cross-examination, apart from disputing the authorship of Ex.D1, PW1 admits that he did not narrate to the Police when the deceased received phone call about confining of PW3 and report given at Gopalapuram Police Station by the deceased. But a perusal of Ex.D1 shows as if the deceased and PW1 together gave the report. The relevant portion of Ex.D3, which is placed on record, totally falsifies his version in the Court.
15) At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW9, who is said to have registered Crime No.41 of 2010. He categorically deposed about PW1 coming to the 11 Police Station and lodging a report, issuing a F.I.R., which is marked as Ex.D32. In-fact, he goes to an extent of stating that he examined PW1 at Police Station at 9.00 A.M. and reduced the statement in his own handwriting. But, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence on record show that, there was some over writings in the date of examination of PW1 i.e., the date 23.06.2010 was corrected as "25.03.2010". The fact that, PW1 alone went to the Police Station and lodged report also gets support from the evidence of PW3, who in his cross-examination admits to that extent. Therefore, in the light of the admissions elicited in the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW9, coupled with the contents of Ex.D1 and Ex.D32, a doubt arises as to who and in what manner the law was set into motion by registering Crime No.41 of 2010 and also as to whether PW3 was wrongfully confined in the disputed land.
16) The next question that falls for consideration is, with regard to the time the deceased went to the disputed site where the incident in question took place?
12
17) It has come in the evidence of PW1 and also in the evidence of PW3 that on 25.03.2010 at about 9.00 or 9.30 A.M., PW3 went into the fields for collecting firewood. If that is so, then the question of the deceased receiving phone call before 8.00 A.M. itself, reporting confinement of PW3 appears to be incorrect. This also is one of the circumstances to doubt whether there was any wrongful confinement of PW3.
18) Further, PW2, who is none other than the wife of deceased, deposed about receiving information about wrongful confinement of PW3 at about 8.00 A.M. itself. Hence, from the above circumstances, a doubt arises with regard to wrongful confinement of PW3.
19) At this stage, it would also be useful to refer to the evidence of PW2, who in her evidence deposed that, while her husband [deceased] was at his house, he received information by 8.00 A.M. that the Accused tied PW3 and threatening to kill him and on receipt of the phone call, the deceased went to Police Station and from there went to the disputed site along with the Constable. Within half an hour thereafter, her 13 husband was brought in a car with injuries on his face, neck etc., and, thereafter, he was taken to Police Station and then to Government Hospital. So, by 8.30 A.M. itself, the deceased was brought back to the house with injuries. That being the situation, the question of deceased, PW1, PW9 and PW10 going to the scene of offence where they were attacked by all the Accused has to be viewed with some doubt.
20) At this stage, it would also be useful to refer to the evidence of PW9 and PW10, who in their evidence deposed about going to Primary Health Center, Gopalapuram, from the scene of offence, which again runs contra to the evidence of PW2, who speaks about deceased being taken initially to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. Further, the evidence of PW10 creates some doubt as to when exactly the deceased received phone call from PW3 and what time he along with PW1 went to Police Station; gave a report and, thereafter, to the scene of offence and whether really the offence took place.
21) Coming to the place where the alleged attack against the deceased took place; the evidence on record indicate any amount of inconsistencies in the said version. As per Ex.P16 - 14 rough sketch, the place where the deceased is said to have been attacked is to the South of disputed land in Survey No.114/3. In the sketch, mango trees were shows as if it is a mango top where PW3 was confined. But, as seen from Ex.D33 -rough sketch in Crime No. 41 of 2010 of Gopalapuram Police Station, the place where PW3 was confined, is shown as to the West of the disputed land. So, the place where PW3 was wrongfully confined is not consistent. Similarly, the evidence of PW9 would show that the place where PW3 was confined is the land which belongs to Karakani Subba Rao and that he cannot say to whom the scene of offence belong to. Therefore, there is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as to where PW3 was confined and also where the incident took place.
22) Coming to the evidence of witnesses, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW9 and PW10 in support of their case.
23) PW1 in his evidence deposed that, there were land disputes between Accused No. 1 and the deceased. According to him, on 25.03.2010 at about 9.00 or 9.30 A.M., Accused 15 Nos. 1 to 3 tied the hands of PW3 and made him to telephone the deceased. On receiving the telephone call from PW3, the deceased went to Gopalapuram Police Station and reported about the incident. PW1 further deposed that, while the deceased was taking the police to the fields, he and PW4 followed them on a motorcycle and they found the Accused quarreling with the deceased at the scene of offence. When the Police were shouting not to quarrel, Accused No.3 beat the deceased with a stick on his head; Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with a knife on the back of his head. PW1 further deposed that, on seeing the incident, he ran away from the scene [paripoyanu]. Then, Police brought the deceased in a car to the Village and on the picked up PW1 in the car. The Police took deceased to the Government Hospital, Gopalapuram, and then to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, where the doctor declared him dead. Police recorded the statement of PW1. PW1 deposed that, Police took him to Magistrate and got recorded his statement under 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P2.
16
24) In cross-examination, PW1 admits that, he did not give any report to the Police on 25.03.2010 with his thumb impression. He further admits that, Police did not record any statement of the deceased at the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. He further admits that, he did not mention in Ex.P1 or in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement the details of the land to which his brother [PW3] went for collection of firewood. He admits that, he did not state to Police that the accused were armed with iron rods and Accused No.1 hacked the deceased on his face. He further admits that, Police did not seize the crime weapons in his presence. He further deposed that, Police did not take him to the scene of offence or the surrounding land either on the date of death of the deceased or on the next day and he did not show anything to the Police.
25) PW3, who is the elder brother of PW1, in his evidence, deposed that, four years prior to giving his evidence, he went to the fields of Sunkara Veera Venkayya for collection of firewood. While returning home, Accused No.2 took him to the field of his grandfather and tied to a mango tree, where, Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were already present, and made him to telephone to the deceased informing about the incident. He 17 further deposed that, when the deceased came to the place, at about 9.30 A.M., Accused No.3 beat the deceased with a stick on his head, Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with a knife on his neck; Accused No.5 beat the deceased with a stick on the head and nose. He ran away fearing for his life. The Police Constables took the deceased to Rajahmundry Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead.
26) In the cross-examination PW3 admits that, he is not aware as to who know who gave report in the case. He admits that, he did not state in his statement to police in Crime No.41 of 2010 that the incident occurred on 25.03.2010. He further admits that, he did not state to the police, the date 25.03.2010, in connection with any incident. He admits that, he did not depose in C.C. No.492/2010 that he went to the land of Veera Venkayya. He further admits that, he did not state in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement that on seeing the assault on the deceased, himself and PW1 ran away from that place. He specifically admits that, he did not state in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement that Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with a sickle on neck. He further admits that, Police did not show him M.O. 1 to M.O.3 except at the time of giving evidence. He 18 further admits that, Police examined him only once after he ran away with fear from the place where the deceased was assaulted, and, thereafter, he was not examined by the police.
27) PW4, who is the brother-in-law of PW1, in his evidence deposed that, four years prior to giving his evidence, PW3 went to the field of one Krishna Murthy for collection of firewood and telephoned to the deceased informing that Accused No. 1 and 2 tied him. He further deposed that, when the deceased along with Police Constables alighted the car and were standing near the car, Accused No.1 came and hacked the deceased on head and neck, while Accused No.3 beat him with a stick on the head. He further deposed that, when Accused Nos.1 and 2 came to assault him and PW3, they ran away from that place. The Police Constables brought the deceased in a car to puntha and thereafter they took PW1 and went to Gopalapuram Police Station and then shifted the injured to Rajahmundry Hospital. According to him, one hour after they went to the Hospital, the deceased died. He also deposed that, police brought him and PW3 to the Magistrate for recording the statements and that he affixed his thumb impression on the statement recorded by the Magistrate. 19
28) In cross-examination, PW4 admits that, he did not state before the Police, in Cr. No. 41 of 2010, that on receipt of phone call the deceased and PW1 went to the Police Station and lodged the report. He further admits that, he did not state specific overt acts of the accused to the Police in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement in Cr. No.41 of 2010. He further admits that, he did not state in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement that Accused No.3 beat the deceased with a stout stick. He specifically admits that, he did not state before the Magistrate in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement that Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with the sickle on the neck. PW4 admits that, himself, PW3 and the deceased went to Gopalapuram Police Station, but none of them gave any written report to the Police. He admits that, he did not depose in C.C. No. 492 of 2010 that Nerusu Raju [PW3] went to the fields for collecting firewood at 9.30 A.M. He admits that, he did not state in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he went to the scene of offence on a motorcycle.
29) PW9 [Head Constable] in his evidence deposed that, on 25.03.2010 at 8.00 A.M., PW1 and the deceased came to the Police Station and lodged a written report, stating that the 20 brother of PW1 was confined by Accused No.1 and others. He registered a case in Crime No.41/2010 and along with staff, visited the scene of offence, in a car. They were followed by PW1 on his motorcycle. While PW9 and another Police Constable were questioning the persons present about wrongful confinement of PW3, Accused No.3 beat the deceased with a stout stick on his forehead, while Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with a knife on the neck, and the remaining accused beat the deceased with sticks indiscriminately. When, PW9 and others rushed there raising cries, all the accused ran away from that place. PW9 and another Constable took the deceased in a car to Gopalapuram P.H.C. and, after getting the first aid, took the deceased to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, where the doctor declared the deceased dead.
30) In cross-examination, PW9 admits that, in the report (certified copy of Ex.D1) at the place where the thumb impression is taken, the name is corrected from Nerusu Suresh to Nerusu Raju. He also admits that, the time of reporting in Ex.D1 is shown as 8.30 A.M. on 25.03.2010. He specifically admits that, PW1 in 161 Cr.P.C. statement in Cr. 21 No. 41 of 2010, the date of examination was corrected from 26.03.2010 to 25.03.2010. He admits that, in the 2nd page of the printed F.I.R., it is written that, the original F.I.R. was submitted to the II A.J.F.C.M., Kovvur, along with original, comp. report along with hospital death intimation and the words "along with the hospital death intimation" were struck off. He got the columns in the printed F.I.R. typed through his Writer and the Writer mistakenly typed the words "along with the hospital death intimation". He admits that, PW1 in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement has not specifically stated that he gave the F.I.R. [Ex.D1]. He further admits that Nerusu Raju [PW3] did not state to him that he went to the lands of Sunkara Veera Venkayya for collection of firewood or that PW3 was tied in the land of Nerusu Krishna Murthy. He specifically admits that, the scene of offence shown by him in the rough sketch is neither that of the deceased nor that of Nerusu Krishna Murthy or the disputed land. He further admits that, he did not prepare the rough sketch at the scene and it was prepared on 26.03.2010. He further admits that, in the rough sketch, at the place of his signature, the date was corrected from 26.03.2010 to 25.03.2010. He admits that, he did not 22 state to Inspector of Police that the deceased came to the Police Station in a car, took him and PC 429 along with him in the car or that they proceeded to the scene of offence. He specifically admits that, he did not state in 161 Cr.P.C., statement that accused attacked the deceased with sticks and sickles. He further admits that, he did not state before the Inspector of Police or the Magistrate that Accused No.3 beat the deceased with a (stout) stick. He admits that, he did not sign in the mediator's report for the seizure of the crime weapons.
31) PW10 - Constable of Gopalapuram Police Station deposed that on 25.03.2010 at 8.30 A.M. while he was in Police Station, PW1 came and presented a written report. The Head Constable registered the same as a case in Crime No. 41 of 2010. According to him, for investigation purpose, PW9 took him along with him, in the car of the deceased, which was followed by PW1 and PW4 and all of them went to the fields of Karicherlagudem. The accused armed with sticks and knife came from opposite direction and then Accused No.3 assaulted the deceased on his forehead with a stick, while Accused No.1 hacked the deceased with knife on left side of 23 the neck i.e., from left ear to the middle of the neck. PW10 and PW9 took the deceased in a car to Gopalapuram P.H.C. and after getting the first-aid, the deceased was shifted in 108 Ambulance to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, where the duty doctor declared him dead.
32) In cross-examination, PW10 admits that, he did not state to the Inspector of Police that he and PW1 took the deceased in a car as in Ex.D39. He admits that, he did not state before the Magistrate that the accused were armed with sickles. He further admits that, he did not state before the Magistrate that all the accused other than Accused No.1 beat the deceased with sickles all over the body as in Ex.D41. He admits that, Head Constable did not prepare any rough sketch at the disputed land in his presence.
33) From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, coupled with the defense documents, which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D42, we hold that, there is any amount of inconsistency and ambiguity in the evidence of prosecution witnesses not only with regard to place, time and the manner in which the assault took place, but, also participation of the Accused in 24 the commission of the offence. It appears that because of land disputes, both the parties taking advantage of the incident in question falsely implicated the accused.
34) It is to be noted here that, this is an appeal against acquittal and that too filed at the instance of a private party. In Chaman Lal v. The State Of Himachal Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"9.1 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala2, this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under:
"12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether 1 AIR 2021 SC 46 ; 2020 (13 ) SCALE 539 2 (2010) 9 SCC 189) 25 in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v.
State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)".
16. In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.3, this Court reiterated the said view, observing that, the appellate court while dealing with the cases in which the trial courts have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour 3 (2008) 10 SCC 450 26 of the witnesses, and was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh4, the Hon'ble Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that:
(SCC p. 374, para 20) "20. ... an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused."
35) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram5, held as under:
"7. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is 4 (2009) 9 SCC 368 5 (2003) 8 SCC 180 27 no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re- appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. {See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.}6. The principle to be followed by appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra7, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat8, and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana9."
36) In view of the inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and as there is ambiguity in the evidence of the witnesses, the Court below was right in acquitting the Accused by extending benefit of doubt, which warrants no interference by this Court.
6 (2002) 4 SCC 85 7 (1973) 2 SCC 793 8 (1996) 9 SCC 225 9 (2000) 4 SCC 484 28
37) Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment dated 06.01.2015 in S.C. No. 666 of 2011 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur.
38) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ____________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI Date: 08.11.2022 dmr 29 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2015 (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) Date: 08.11.2022 dmr