Appellate court can reverse acquittal only if trial court's findings are perverse or illegal; if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should be adopted.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w 109 and Sections 366, 344, 342, 354, 417, 379 r/w 109 - Offence of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, assault, theft - Appeal against acquittal. (Paras 1, 3, 4)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of appellate court - Appellate court cannot reverse acquittal unless findings of trial court are perverse, contrary to evidence, or manifestly illegal; mere possibility of another view is not sufficient. (Paras 10-12, 34-37)

(C) Evidence - Delay in lodging FIR - Inordinate and unexplained delay is fatal to prosecution case; it raises suspicion and casts doubt on veracity of prosecution version. (Paras 28-32)

(D) Criminal Trial - Presumption of innocence - In appeal against acquittal, presumption of innocence of accused is reinforced; prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. (Paras 34-37)

Facts of the case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of two accused for offences including kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and theft. The prosecution alleged that the accused deceitfully abducted the victim (PW.1), wrongfully confined her at multiple locations, and coerced her into marriage. The victim allegedly voluntarily accompanied one of the accused, was transported to various places while unconscious, and was confined for several days. The FIR was filed after a delay of 22 days. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence improbable and lacking corroboration.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence. The court noted inherent improbabilities in the victim's testimony, including her failure to seek help during a four-day stay at a relative's house and during travel while allegedly unconscious, the lack of independent corroboration (e.g., non-examination of neighbours, the relative where she stayed), the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the possibility of false implication due to prior enmity between the families. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's judgment was not perverse.

Issues: Whether the Assistant Sessions Court was justified in acquitting the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only if the trial court's findings are perverse, contrary to evidence, or manifestly illegal. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should be adopted. In this case, the trial court's view was a plausible one based on the evidence, and there was no ground for interference. Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.

Table of Content
1. appeal against acquittal under section 378 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellant's contention and formulation of point for determination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. scope of appellate court's interference in acquittal appeals. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. prosecution's factual narrative of abduction and confinement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. defence contentions regarding lack of corroboration and prior enmity. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. trial court's analysis of improbabilities in prosecution evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. effect of unexplained delay in lodging fir. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. confirmation of acquittal due to lack of proof. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal, under section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) is preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.942 of 2000 by its judgment dated 08.01.2002 acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w108 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against the accused.

2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was marked.

3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tsodayapalam Police Station, prosecuted Accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, and 379 read with Section 109 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the accused deceitfully abducted PW.1 (the victim), wrongfully confined her at multiple locations, and coerced her into marrying A1. It is further alleged that they assaulted her with the intent to outrage her modesty and committed theft of her property by employing fraudulent means.

4. The learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle before whom the Charge Sheet was filed, complied with the provisions under section 209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Guntur Division. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur made over this case to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Repalle, for disposal in accordance with law. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 344, 342, 354, 417 and 379 I.P.C. against A.1 and for the offence under section 342, 368, 366 r/w 109 I.P.C. against A.2, read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. The Trial Court examined the accused as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to enable them to consider the evidence that had been led on the part of the prosecution and also appeared against them. But the accused denied the truth of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After conclusion of arguments and upon perusal of the material, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State contends that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate that the essential ingredients of offence under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w.109 IPC were made out. He further contends that the learned trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which is cogent and reliable and the Trial Court's disregard of prosecution evidence renders the acquittal unsustainable.

7. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Accused despite being afforded sufficient opportunities to prosecute the appeal.

8. I have heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the material available on record, including the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

9. The point for determination is:

Was the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19245

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHT MALLIKARJUNA RAOThe State of A.P. – AppellantVersusKalneni Chinna Punna Rao – RespondentCRLA 258/2009

Appellate court can reverse acquittal only if trial court's findings are perverse or illegal; if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused should be adopted.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
The State of A.P. – Appellant
Versus
Kalneni Chinna Punna Rao – Respondent
CRLA 258/2009