State appeals against acquittal of four accused under IPC Sections 307, 326, and 324. The High Court finds no perversity in the trial judge's decision based on latches in prosecution evidence, dismissing the appeal and confirming conviction.
Criminal Appeal dismissed confirming the acquittal judgment dated 26.06.2007.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1097 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Appellant-State filed the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment dated 26.06.2007 rendered in S.C.No.355 of 2005 wherein and whereby the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Boini Eshwar lodged a report on 09.05.2005 at 9.00 pm stating that on the same day at 6.00 pm, all the accused persons armed with axe and sticks attacked him and one Boini Yadav with a common intention and beat them with axe and sticks causing them severe bleeding injuries. Hence, the case.
This Court perused the entire impugned judgment and also heard the arguments.
In view of the latches, lacunas and deviations in the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are well in accordance with law and the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective.
2
Further, in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.
In Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura1 the Apex Court held as under:
“It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent
1 (2011) 9 SCC 479
3
court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.”
In Maloth Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 the
Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the
2 (2011) 8 SCC 635
4
conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.
In view of the judgments referred to above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 26.06.2007 passed in S.C.No.355 of 2005 on
the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
_________________
(G. SRI DEVI, J)
3 rd March 2021
RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial Court's acquittal given latches and lacunas in prosecution evidence.
Whether the ground decision acquitting the accused for offences under IPC Sections 307, 326, 324 and 341 is perversely contrary to the evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinal Das v. State of TripuraRelied on¶11
(2011) 9 SCC 479 · Who else cites this
Maloth Somaraju v. State of Andhra PradeshRelied on¶16
(2011) 8 SCC 635 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State
G. Sri Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
