Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SHAMEEM AKTHER, N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, JJ.
Kum. Rupa – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2013
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 372, 235(1), 313, 161 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 - Tenants - Asking Rents - Abusing In Filthy Language - Whether PWs. 1 to 3 suffered injuries at hands of A1 to A3 in alleged incident - Whether there was an attempt on part of A1 to A3 to do away with life of PWs. 1 to 3 - Whether prosecution is able to prove guilt of A1 to A3 of offences beyond all reasonable doubt - Whether acquittal recorded in favour of A1 to A3 by Court below of offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC vide impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Findings of the Court:
There is no evidence, much less cogent and convincing evidence, to conclude that PWs. 1 to 3 sustained injuries due to assault by A1 to A3 - In view of above material discrepancies, evidence of PWs.1 and 3 that they suffered injuries at hands of A1 to A3 in subject incident is unbelievable - In absence of any substantial evidence against A1 to A3 to prove their complicity in subject offence as indicated above, it cannot be held that they are guilty of charges framed against them - Hence, decisions relied by learned counsel for appellant are not helpful to appellant - Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn against A1 to A3 are not cogently and firmly established by prosecution - Court below had meticulously dealt with entire evidence and is justified in acquitting A1 to A3 of charges framed against them - There is nothing to take a different view - None of contentions raised on behalf of appellant/de facto complainant merit consideration.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) is filed by the appellant/de facto complainant, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 13.12.2012, passed in S.C. No. 22 of 2012 by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, whereby, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein/A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and were acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant, Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State, Mr. M.S. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5/A1 to A3 and perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
4. On receipt of Ex.P.1-complaint, PW-6 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 478 of 2010 of the offences under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P4-FIR and handed over the CD file to PW-7-Sub Inspector of Police. PW-7 examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch under Ex.P5 in the presence of PW-5 and another, seized MOs.1 to 4-four stone pieces under Ex.P2-Seizure Report in the presence of PW-5 and another, proceeded to hospital and seized MO.5-pant, MO.6-Jacket and MO.7-Orange lining half shirt of PW-2 under Ex.P3-Seizure Report in the presence of PW-5 and another, examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 3, 4 and LW.5 on the same day, examined and recorded the statements of PW-2 on the third day of the incident, as he was unconscious, apprehended A1 and sent him to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, LW-13 Y. Swarajya Laxmi, Sub Inspector of Police, laid charge sheet before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, against A1 to A3 of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
5. The Magistrate had taken cognizance against A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, registered the same as P.R.C. No. 73 of 2011 and committed the same to the Court of Session, Warangal, since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the Court of Session numbered the case as S.C. No. 22 of 2012 and made over to the Court below for disposal, in accordance with law.
6. On appearance of A1 to A3, the Court below framed charges against them of the offences under
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, puts no limitations, restrictions, or conditions for exercising power by the appellate Court.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable t....
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
An appellate court should not lightly interfere with an order of acquittal, even if it believes that there is some evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
