2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23989
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.SURENDER, J
The State of Telangana – Appellant
Versus
Ganta Rajendar – Respondent
CRLA/878/2024
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless compelling reasons exist to overturn the trial court's findings, maintaining the presumption of innocence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 290 and 506 - SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 - Acquittal of accused for alleged caste-based abuse and assault on landowner - The trial court found no evidence of wrongful dispossession or demarcation of land, deeming the dispute civil in nature. (Paras 4, 5, 7)
(B) Acquittal - Standards for appellate review - The appellate court must uphold acquittal unless the trial court's findings are manifestly unjust or based on an erroneous view of law. The presumption of innocence must be maintained. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused for alleged offences after a complaint was lodged five days post-incident, concerning a land dispute involving caste-based abuse.
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Court's judgment was well-reasoned, lacking evidence of wrongful dispossession or proper demarcation of land, and the delay in filing the complaint was unexplained.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the dispute (civil vs. criminal) and the adequacy of evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the appellate court should respect the trial court's acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to overturn it, highlighting the importance of the presumption of innocence.
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
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,
6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
“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;
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 Courts/appellate