State filed Criminal Appeal against trial court acquittal in rape and kidnapping case. High Court held trial court took correct view of evidence and found no perversity. Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.
Impugned judgment of acquittal in SC No. 225 of 2008 confirmed and criminal appeal dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1097 OF 2011
Appeal filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C presented to the High Court against the Judgment dated 16.09.2009 passed in SC No.225 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.
Between:
The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Cou( of A.P., Hyderabad.
...APELLANT/petitioner
AND
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(CRLAMP. NO: 1509 OF 201 1)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to present this Criminal Appeal against the Judgment in SC No. 22512008 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, dt. 16-9-2009
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLAMP. NO: 1921 OF 2010)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 233 days in presenting the appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused/respondents in SC No. 22512008 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem dated 16-9-2009 and pass
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : SRI KHAJA VIZARATH ALI,
ASSr. PUBLTC PROSECUTOR (TG)
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: SRI M KIRAN KUMAR REDDY
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT :
tr
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL IMI LA EAL 1 70 1
JUDGMENT:
The present CriminalAppealis filed by the appellant/State against thejudgment dated 16.09.2009in S'C'No'225of 2008on thefileofthelearnedPrincipalAssistantSessionsJudge, Kothagudem(for sl-rort,"the trial Coutt")'
2
q
he came to know that accused No.1 kidnapped his daughter with the help of some others. Hence, a case was registered in Cr. No.61 of 2007. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court vide S.C.No.225 of 2008.
3
has voluntarily stat<:d thataccusedNo.1 had sexual intercoursewith her.
15 years by the date ofherexaminationon -\05.05.2007. 'itg also born out from the evidence on record that by /-+
4
t.
the date of incident, PW.2 was studying Bth class in ZPH School, Julurupad and attained the age of desertion and had knowledge of the consequences of her activities and voluntarily went along with respondent/accused No.1, as she was love in with him and decided to marry him. Even, if PW.2 was held to be aged about 15 years by the date of the alleged incident, it can be safely concluded that she was having very much knowledge of consequences of her acts and with such knowledge, she went along with accused No.1, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any force on the part of accused No.1to kidnap PW.2 and to have sexual intercourse with her.
B. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order of the trial Court, unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence, vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have beenpossibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably andjudiciously and is therefore,to be characterized asperverse. There is no embargo onthe appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order ofacquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not beinterfered with,
5
t:
innocenceof the accused is further because the PresurlPtionof strengthenedbY acquittal.
The goldenthread,which runs through the web of administrationof jLrstice in criminalcases, is that, if two views are possible on theevidence adducedin the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accusedand the other to his innocence' the view which is favourable tothe accusedshould be adopted'
held as under:
"It is clear thalt lnan appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in thejudgment and order, interference by thisCourt exercising itse:(traordinaryjurisdiction, is not warranted' However'if the appeal isheard by an appellatecourt,being the final court of fact' is fully competentto re- appreciate, reconsider and reviewthe evidence andt.akeits own decision' In other words' law does not prescribe any limitation,restriction or conditionon exercise of such power and the appellatecourt is free to arrive at its ownconclusion keeping in mindthat acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused.The presumptionof innocenceis availableto the person and in criminaljurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he isproved quilty by the competent court' If two reasonable views arepossible on the basis of the evidence on record'the appellate courtshould not disturb the findingsof acquittal'Thereis no limitation on t-]epart of the appellatecourt to reviewtheevidence upon which theorderoF acquittalis found and to come to its own conclusion. Tho appellatecourtcan also reviewthe conclusion arrived
' lzottl e scc ars
6
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 lgnored 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. "
'zlzott; a scc ots
1
I
in the findings of the trial cour-tand on the other hand there is no force or merits in thegroundsof appealwarrantinginterferenceof this Court. Accordirrglythe appealis liable to be dismissed'
Miscellaneous applications,pending if any, shall standclosed.
Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1.The Principal AssistantSessionsJ udge,l(-othagudem' 2.Two CCs to the PUBLICPROSECUTOR(TG)Advocate [OUT] 5.One CC to SRI M RAJAMALLAREDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4.Two CD Copies.
HA/gh
B
HIGH COURT
DATED:04.03.2024
i
ORDER
CRLA.No.1097 of 2011
R lri!-:;;4;
{ q.
3 0 0t[ 2l]14
oot
C)
*
.S"at-,:;ttE9
CRIMINAL APEAL IS DISMISSED
,-\rt
\qP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal when no perversity or manifest illegality is found.
Whether the appellate court is justified in confirming the acquittal of accused persons despite the prosecution's appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mrinlal Das vs. State of TripuraExplained¶47
Mrinlal Das vs. State of Tripura
Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra PradeshExplained¶53
Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
10 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of A.P.
Boda Ramesh
Qanoth Sakru
Bhukya Kishan
E.V. VENUGOPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
