Dismissed

Smt. Md.Chathabee, v. Md.Yakub

Telangana HC11 Dec 2024CRLRC/1780/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by the defacto complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused by the appellate court. The High Court held that despite the error in registration of FIR, the acquittal was not perverse and therefore no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed and the impugned order of acquittal was upheld.

Smt. Md.Chathabee, Vs Md.Yakub — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1 780 0F 2012

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.pC against the Judgment dated 25-07-201^'l made in Crl.A.No.198 ot 2O1O on the file;f the 9qr4^{gf. th-e-PrincipalSessions Judge, Warangal preferred againstthe Order} dated 04-08-20'10 made in C.C.No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt MD.Chathqbge, Wo. Yakub, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Wadlakonda Village, Parvathgiri Mandal, Warangal.

¶10

... De-facto Complainant /Applet

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. Md.Yakub, S/o. Ramzan, R/o. Wadlakonda, parvathagiri UllnOat, Warangal.

¶13

...Accused/Respondent

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public prosecutor, High Court Buildings, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad_

¶15

... Res pondenUCom pla ina nt

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K Gani Reddy ( No representation)

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri E Ganesh, Assistant

¶19

Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

;

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.178O OF ?Ol2

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner against the jLrdgment dated 25.O7.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. i9B of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal (for short, "the appellate Cou-t") reversing the judgment datr:rl 04.O8.20 10 in C.C.No.27 of 2OO9 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate c,f First Glbss, at Warangal (for sl-rort, "the trial Court").

¶26

No repr('sentation on behalf of the petftio.rer. Heard Mr.Aja,v Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for respondent No. I and Mr.E.Canesh, learned Assistant Public prosr:cutor appearing for respondent No.2-State.

¶27

There u,as no representation on behalf of the petitioner on numerous occa slon s Even today, there is no r(lpresentation on behalf of thc 1;etitioner. Therefore, this Courl. iS inclined to proceed u.itlt tl-re rnatter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Honble Ape-x Court in Bani Singh and others Vs. State of

¶28

¶29

Uttar PradeshI, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2008 at about l2:OO hours at Wadlakonda Village, when LW1 was proceeding to his house, LW3 called him and discussed about the marriage issue of his daughter; at that time, respondent No.1/accused was proceeding on his motor cycle; on witnessin g LW2 discussing with LW3, the accused stopped there and started abusing I-W2ⁱⁿ filthy language; on which LW2 stated that he is unaware of^the same; that accused bore grudge on LW2 and^{abu,sedhim; that} I accused caught hold of the collar of LW2, beat him with^hands, fisted and kicked him with legs keeping the^previous enmityⁱⁿ mind. On witnessing the same, LWs.3 to 6 rushed to the^{spot and} rescued LW2 from the clutches of the accused. On seeing^LWs.3 to 6, the accused fled away from the scene. LW2^sustained grievous injury on his left thigh. Later, LWs.3 to 6 shifted^the injured/ LW2 to MGM Hospital, Warangal in 108^Ambulance where LW2 was treated. Basing on the said facts, LWl l/Head Constable registered a case against the accused in Crime^{No.1 16} of 2O08 for the offence under Section 325 of^l.P.C /

¶31

I 119961^{4 SuprcmeCourtCascs 720}

¶32

¶33

The trial Court vide judgment datecl 04.OB.2O1O in C.C.No.27 of 2009 found respondent No. l /acctrsed guilty for the offence under Section 325 of I.P.C.; convicted a;-rd sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment lor a period o1- one year and to pay fine ol Rs.500/ , in default of payment of fine, he was directed to sr-rl'fer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 1 prelerred an Appeal.

¶34

The appe'llate Court, vide impugned judgment, allowed the Appeal and ser aside the judgment passed by the trial' Court. Assailing the s:rme, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶35

t 7 As per tlrc. grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court set aside the.judgment passed by the trial Cor.rrr on the ground of delay in registering the F.l.R.; further, failed to appreciate the evidence of pWs. and,2, panchas for the scene⁽ )f oflence and the evidence of Doctor which are corroborated br' trxs. P7 and 13. Therefore, he s,ubmits that the appellate Court, erroneously reversed the findings of the trial Court and seeks to allow this Revision.

¶36

Learned < ounsel for respondent No.1 conter-rded that the appellate Court. r-rpon careful scrutiny of the material availabre on record, rightl.y passed the impugned judgment and

¶37

¶38

interference of this Court is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss this Revision.

¶39

On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to B and marked Exs.Pl to P13. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document^was marked.^Uponcareful consideration of the material available on record, the trial^Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 325^of I.P.C.

¶40

In the appeal, the appellate Court, upon^{re-appreciattng the} evidence available on record observed^{that there was enmity} between the accused and PW2 and that the^{inor{inate delay in} registering the F.l.R. raises suspicion about^{the truth and} genuineness of the case of the prosecution'^Therefore, in^the absence of satisfactory explanation for the delay^{in registering} F.l.R., the appellate Court held that the^{prosecutionfailedto} prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable^{doubt and} acquitted the accused.

¶41

1 i. 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^{uniess the approach} made by the trial Court to the consideration^olevidenceis

¶42

¶43

vitiated by some malifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, whrch could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and i:; therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an or<ler 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 ttrread which runs through the r.veb of administration of justice in criminal c.ases is that if trvo 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 vieu, n,hich is favourable to the a<:cused should be adopted.

¶44

In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripuraz the Apex Court held

¶45

as under

¶46

"lt is clear that in an appea_l 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 t.he appeal is heard b1' an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, re<:onsider and revieu. the evidence and take its own decision. In other

t lzot t.y o scc +lo

(

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 o[ 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 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 appeilate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its 6wn conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court withrrespect to both facts and law. Whiie dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appe llate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent alrd 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 materiais placed."

¶51

¶52

ln Matoth Sotnaraju Vs. State of And.hra prad.eshs the Apex Court held that there can be no two oprnions 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 responsiLrility while dealing with the judgment ol acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and wtrere the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The apltellate Court has to examine as to r.l,hether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

¶53

¶54

In vieu' .f the .Iudgments referred to above and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that there itre no merits in this Revision and the same is liable to be dismisst_.d.

¶55

Accordingl-y, this Criminal Revision Case is <lismissed.

¶56

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

\ To,

¶58

Sd/I B. SATY AVATHI ISTRAR //TRUE COPYII rsr.:i:: ir/ Bec,or o FFICER

¶59

1 31 The The lll P;incipal Sessions Judge, Additionat Judiciat rvrlgistrat; Warangaloi ;irst Ctass Warangat I1."":.n:i3;Pubric Prosecutor, Hish c;;; r* d; state or reransana at

¶60