Telangana High Court
Anthagari Harsha Vardhan Reddy vs Sheri Siva Reddy, And The State Of A.P. ... on 26 September, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.279 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Criminal Appeal is filed by the de-facto complainant/P.W.1 questioning the acquittal of respondents/A- 1 to A-12 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 109 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/de-facto complainant, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant-State and also counsel for accused.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant/P.W.1 was informed by P.W.6 that his brother-in-law namely Anatha Reddy was murdered by unknown persons and his body was lying on the road near Teelair Village. He went there and found the dead body and deceased's motor cycle was also found beside the dead body. The deceased was brutally murdered by cutting his throat apparently with an axe. The complaint/Ex.P.1 was lodged by P.W.1 with Police stating that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased and suspected that some of the accused were included in the 2 murder. Further, the deceased was last seen with A-8. According to the complaint, P.W.1 suspected that other accused planned to kill the deceased. On the basis of the complaint, Police took up investigation and after concluding investigation filed charge sheet for the above said offences.
4. The case of the prosecution is that there were disputes in between the deceased and A-9 and A-10. In fact, A-9 and A- 10 have asked P.Ws.8 and 9 to kill the deceased when he approached A-9 for purchasing the land. The motive to murder deceased was projected during trial by P.W.1 and P.W.3. The independent witness P.W.7 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not speak anything about motive. Learned Sessions Judge found that the case entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. The motive attributed to the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the learned Sessions Judge found that other circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that A-8 was found in the company of the deceased before death and A-8 took the deceased from his house as stated by P.Ws.3 and 4. According to the witnesses, the deceased was also found in the company of one Yadulu prior to his death. The said Yadulu was not examined. In the absence of prosecution not examining the said Yadulu, learned 3 Sessions Judge found that it creates any amount of doubt regarding last seen theory.
5. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge held that prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive aspect and the last seen theory was also not convincing.
6. Learned Session Judge further discussed the evidence of P.Ws.1/brother-in-law, P.W.2/wife and P.W.3/son of the deceased who stated about motive and A-8 taking the deceased. However since they are not the eye witnesses tried to speak about the enmity of the deceased with A-8. Learned Sessions Judge found that evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 was of no help to the prosecution. P.W.5 who is another independent witness turned hostile to the prosecution case. On the basis of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge found that P.Ws.1 to 3 only speak about alleged motive which was not proved and the last seen theory of A-8 being in the company of the deceased was also not proved beyond doubt. Accordingly, acquittal was recorded.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1, laid principles as to the 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 4 acceptance of circumstantial evidence and the basis to record conviction, which read as under:-
"1. the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
2. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused."
8. Having gone through the record, the only two circumstances relied on by the prosecution is the alleged motive aspect spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3 and the last seen theory that A-8 was allegedly seen with the deceased. However, prosecution case is that one Yadulu was present and he was seen in the company of the deceased. The said Yadulu had also seen the deceased in the company of A-8. Non examination of said Yadulu creates any amount of suspicion regarding 5 deceased last being seen with A-8. The said Yadulu would have cleared the doubt whether A-8 and deceased left together or parted ways. Yadulu though examined during investigation was given up during trial.
9. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 2, held that 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 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.
10. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3 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 para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles 2 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 3 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 6 crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
11. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 26.09.2024 dv