IMPORTANT POINT
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence remains, and the appellate court should not interfere unless there is compelling evidence of error in the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

The instant is an appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 372 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2012 in Sessions Case No.154 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

2. Heard Mr. Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant; the learned Public Prosecutor, for the 1st respondent-State; and Mr. Koppula Gopal, learned counsel for respondent / Accused Nos.2 to 5.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Court below has found the respondent / Accused Nos. 2 to 5 not guilty for the charges leveled against them and acquitted them.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Smt. Anusha Begum was married to the respondent No.2 / Accused No.1, viz., Naseer Ahammed on 01.05.2005. It was contended by the complainant that the deceased is the brother of PW.1 (Sri Mohammad Sultan). It was further contended by the complainant that at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given in cash in addition to 5 tolas of gold, 25 tolas of silver, 1 bicycle, 1 cot and other household articles to the respondent No.2 / Accused No.1. However, soon after the marriage, the respondent No.2 / Accused No.1 and other family members started harassing the deceased asking her to convince her parents to arrange a new Auto for respondent No.2 / Accused No.1. It was further contended by the complainant that the respondent No.2 / Accused No.1 along with the other accused persons have started physically and also mentally torturing her, and there is also threat to her life which was informed by the deceased to the PW.1 on the telephone.

5. It was further contended by the complainant that on 14.05.2006, the deceased has requested PW.1 (brother) to come to Dornal Village, i.e., the matrimonial home of the deceased. On 15.05.2006, when PW.1 went to the home of the deceased at Dornal Village, the deceased had already died under suspicious circumstances. Immediately, at 12:30 P.M., the complainant (PW.1) lodged a report with the Mominpet Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.76/06 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498 and 306 of I.P.C. Thereafter, an inquest was conducted and the body was sent to the Government Civil Hospital Vikarabad for conducting an autopsy; and a post-mortem report was issued by the Doctor (PW.10). In the post-mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to hanging. On 21.05.2006, the accused were arrested and sent for judicial remand. Subsequently, charge-sheet was also filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 498 and 306 of I.P.C.

6. Subsequent to the committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the matter was registered as Sessions Case No.154 of 2008. In all nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was examined in support of the defence. During the trial, the Court below has framed an additional charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.

7. After conclusion of the trial and the accused being examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Court below passed the impugned judgment in Sessions Case No.154 of 2008 on 30.07.2012 wherein it was held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

8. It is this judgment of acquittal which now stands challenged by the appellant in the present appeal.

9. From the last couple of hearings, there has been no representation on behalf of the appellant. Considering the fact that it is an appeal of the year 2014 and that the appeal is also an acquittal appeal, with the able assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor we proceed to decide the appeal on its merits.

10. There is one thing which needs to be highlighted at the first instance, i.e