THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.878 OF 2024

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment of the acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 290 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(g)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing for the victim/de-facto complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 owned Ac.4-32 gts of land in Sy.No.189 at Makloor Thanda of Gangaram Thanda of Indalwai Mandal. The allegation is that all the accused have gone to the land of P.W.1 on 06.06.2019 questioning the digging of bore well in his land and attacked P.W.1 and abused him in the name of his caste. Aggrieved by the said incident, the complaint was filed after 5 days i.e., on

11.06.2019 with Indalwai Police.

4. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and basing on the evidence of all the documents Exs.P.1 to P.11 found the accused not guilty on the following grounds:-

(1) P.W.2, who is the father of P.W.1 was working as ARSI at Kamareddy and on account of his influence, he managed the Police and filed a false complaint.

(2) The dispute pertains to land and purely civil in nature, P.W.2 converted it into a criminal case and exerted pressure on the accused.

(3) There is no iota of evidence as no demarcation was done to the disputed land and further to prove that P.W.1 purchased it.

(4) The land of Ac.4-32 gts in Sy.No.189 where the incident had taken place, there is no demarcation by revenue officials and no proof is filed that A-1 to A-4 have committed wrongful dispossession of P.W.1 from his land.

5. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, [(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536], held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450] the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

“70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:

i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”;

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court’s judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High