Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Veerabrahman Shobhan Babu

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024CRLA/194/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State questioning the acquittal of accused persons under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Upholding the trial judge's view, the Court found no compelling reasons to overturn the acquittal due to witness inconsistencies and uncorroborated testimony.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State is dismissed; the order of acquittal stands confirmed.

The State of Telangana Vs Veerabrahman Shobhan… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³²⁵¹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIM INAL APPEAL NO: 194 OF 2024

¶7

Criminal Appeal under Section 378⁽³⁾ &^{('l) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment} daled 22-08-2023 made in S.C. No.^{44 of 2O17on the file of the Court of the Special} sessions Judge for Trial of scs/sTs^{(PoA) Act Cases-cum-ll AdditionalDistrict&} Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the} State of Telangana, Hyderabad^- 500066

¶10

...APPellant / ComPlainant

¶11

AND

¶12

Veerabrahman Shobhan Babu, S/o. Chellaiah,^{Age 38 years, Caste- Vyshya,} Occ- Business^(kiranam shop),^{R/o. Sherigudem Village of Narayanpur} Mandal of Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶13

Veerabomma / Veerabrahmma^{Ashok, S/o. Chellaiah, age43 years, Caste-} Vyshya. Occ- Business, R/o. Sherigudem,^{H/o.Kankanalagudem Village of} Nhrayanpur Mandal of Yadadri^{Bhuvanagiri District}

¶14

.Respondents / Accused

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant

¶16

Sri M Vivekananda ReddY Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents :

¶18

¶19

The Court delivered the following Judgment^:

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.194 OF 2024

¶22

IUDCMENT:

¶23

The State is questioning the order of the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act.

¶24

The case of prosecution is that on 08.09.2016 around 2P.M, A1 and A2 went to the disputed plot beloriging to pW3 in which she was undertaking constmction and disturbed the materia,l in the plot. When questioned both A.1 and A,2 abused PWl in the name of her caste. On account of the said incident, complaint was filed after 18 days i.e., 26.O9.2O16.

¶25

.)a The learned Sessions Judge examined witnesses pWl to PW12 and marked Ex.P1 to PL2, on behalf of prosecution. DW.l was examined and Ex.Dl and Ex.D2 were marked on behalf the accused. Having considered the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds.

¶26

¶27

CRLA No.194 OF?8?4

¶28

PW1 to PW6 are all interested witnesses and related to one

¶29

i) another. Admittedly theg u.tere relatiues.

¶30

ii) There is no corroboration regarding the word.s uttered by the acansed bg u;itnesses PW2 to PW6. Eueryone gaue different uersion.

¶31

iiil PWI did not speak about tLLe presence of PW2 to PW6 when the incident has taken place.

¶32

iu) PW2 did not state about the abuse hurled bg the acansed. He did not depose euen about presence of PW3 to PW6. The abuses as stated bg PW3 uas different from u-that PW1 hctd deposed.

¶33

u) PW4 also had different uersion of the utterance, made bg A1 andA2.

¶34

w) There is unexplained delag of 18 days in filing complaint. Admittedlg disputes regarding propertA tuere pending in betueen parties.

¶35

uii) On 17.O9.2016, father of the acansed filed criminal case against the PW2 and PW3. There tuere pending ciuil di.sputes which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D3

¶36

In cases of acquittal, the Honble Supreme Court in Raui Sharmrr v. State (Gooernment of NCT of Delhi) and anotherl, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial

¶37

\ (2022) I Supreme Court Cases 536

¶38

( IRLA No.194 OF 2024

¶39

)

¶40

Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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 tria-l court rendering acquittal.

¶41

In Ghureg La.l u. State of Uttar Pradesh2 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 7O, as follows:

¶42

"70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court ond other appellate Courts should follow tle uell-settled pinciples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it is going to ouerntle or otheruuise disturb the tial court's ocqtittal: 7. The appellate court mag onlg ouerntle or otheru.tise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

¶43

A number of instances aise in which the appellate court u.tould haue "uery substantial^qnd compelling reasons' to discard the trial court's dectsion. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist tuhen:

¶44

i) The trial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is palpablg wrong: ii) Tle tial court's decision uas based on an erroneous uietu of law;

¶45

iii)The tial court's judgment is likely to result in "graue mis carriag e of^ju stic e^" ;

¶46

'z^{(2008)10 SupremeCourt Cases450}

¶47

¶48

CRLA No.19tl OF 2024

¶49

iu)TLe entire opproach of the tial court in dealing uith the euidence utas patently ilLegal;

¶50

u) The trial court's judgment u)as manifestlg unjust and unreasonable;

¶51

ui)The tial courT has ignored the euidence or misread the material euidence or has ignored mateial doatments like dying declarations/ report of ttle ballistic expert, etc. uii) This lisl is intended to be illustrattue, not exLtaustiue.

¶52

The appellate court must alu.nys giue proper wetght and consideration o the fi.ndings of the trial court.

¶53

If ttt-to reasonable uieu.ts can be reache,l one that leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in fauour of the accused.'

¶54

There was delay of 18 days in lodging the complaint. All the witnesses PWl to PW6 are related to each other. Though the witnesses claim that they have seen A1 and 42 abusing PW1, however, the utterance, that was stated by the witnesses differed from one another.

¶55

Admittedly, there are civil disputes which are pending. I did not find any reasons to interfere with the well reasoned order of the tria-l Court. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. Unless an order of acquittal is not based on record or passed under extraneous circumstances, which should be reflected in the judgment, the

¶56

¶57

CRLA No-194 OF 20211

¶58

question of interfering in the appeal against acquittal does not

¶59

AIlSC

¶60

B. Accordingly, the appeal hled by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

Sd/- M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I

¶62