Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.SAM KOSHY, SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Koppu Jyothi – Appellant
Versus
Sandepaga Chenraidu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P.SAM KOSHY, J.
The instant is an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy (for short, the ‘Trial Court’) in S.C.No.282 of 2012.
2. Since the counsel who was appearing for the appellant had not been representing for long, Ms. Ande Vishala, was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant vide order dated 19.02.2024. Accordingly, the matter was argued on behalf of the appellant by Ms. Ande Vishala and the learned Public Prosecutor argued on behalf of the respondents/accused.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the six (06) accused persons i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 6 in the present appeal were acquitted from the charges punishable under Section 148 , 302, 302 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the dispute revolves around a land that situates in Survey Nos.154 and 15 admeasuring Ac.6-00 which was assigned by the Government in favour of twelve (12) families including the accused and Balaraju (hereinafter the ‘deceased’). Some dispute arose in bet
An acquittal should not be disturbed without substantial evidence against the acquitted; the presumption of innocence is a crucial standard in criminal appeals.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of proof is essential for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence, the principles for interference with a judgment of acquittal, and the need for trustworthy evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
An acquittal by the trial court reinforces the presumption of innocence, and an appeal against such acquittal requires substantial justification, which was lacking in this case.
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
