Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16573
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
THE P.P. A.P.H.C. – Appellant
Versus
TALLAPALLI CHITTII BABU ADILABAD DIST. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.589 OF 2015 | Sessions Case No.278 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy
For the Respondents:
In appeals against acquittal, appellate courts must respect trial court's findings unless there are substantial reasons to overturn them.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 427, 294(b), 506 and 323 - Acquittal and conviction - The State appeals against the acquittal of the accused on charges of outraging modesty and mischief, while being convicted under Section 323 IPC for simple hurt - The trial court found insufficiency in evidence for the other charges. (Paras 2-20)
(B) Acquittal in Criminal Cases - In appeals against acquittal, courts exercise restraint and base decisions on substantial and compelling reasons, following established principles. (Paras 17-19)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged the respondent committed various offences including physical assault and mischief after intervening in a family engagement. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case leading to acquittal on certain charges while convicting for simple hurt.
Findings of Court:
The trial court held prosecution failed to prove elements under Sections 354 and 427 IPC, leading to acquittal for those counts, affirming only the conviction under Section 323 IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the trial court’s acquittal was justifiable under established legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the trial court’s view should not be overturned without valid grounds, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of appeal against an acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by the prosecution regarding evidence and conviction. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 3. court's findings on evidence insufficiency. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. outcome of the appeal and dismissal reasoning. (Para 15 , 19) |
| 5. principles governing the appellate review of acquittals. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Sessions Case No.278 of 2007 dated 05.11.2007 whereunder the respondent/accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 354 , 427, 294(b) and 506 of IPC and he is convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC .
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as under:
“The brief averments of the charge sheet are that this is a case of assault with criminal force with an intention to outrage the modesty, mischief causing damage, voluntarily causing simple hurt with criminal intimidation which occurre3d on 17.03.2007 and reported on 18.03.2007. That on 18.03.2007 the complainant Tallapalli Nannaiah came to police station Utnoor and lodged a written complaint by stating that on 17.3.07 at about 7:00 p.m while he along with relatives chitchatting about the engagement of his nephew Vijaya, his brother’s son, the acused hereinwho wuld pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to Vijaya at the time of her marriage which was due to her, inentinally intrfered in the engagement not to fix the marriage and came there with an axe in drunken condition abused them invulgar language in obscene words. The complainant and ohters caught hold of him but he beat the complainant and his son ANagesh with hands. ON seeing this the wife of Nagesh namely Lalitha came to rescue her husband and the ccused abused her also in vulgar lnauge, cqaught hold her neck and pushed her on the ground and removed her saree by insulting her modesty. Later he bit one Srinu over his leg and beat T. Venkatapathi and T. Raju with hands. Due to fear Vijaya and her mother went inside the house and closed the doors. On seeing this, he damaged the house door with axe and threatened with dire consequences. The village elders Kendre Ramarao, Kendre Pandari and some others came and brought the accused from there.”
3. Heard Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. No representation on behalf of respondent/accused either in physical mode or virtual mode.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the respondent/accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 354 , 427, 294(b) and 506 of IPC and 323 of IPC . However, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 354 , 427, 294(b) and 506 of IPC and only convicted for the offences under Sections 323 of IPC , though the prosecution proved the case by producing oral and documentary evidence.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution discharged the burden to prove the commission of the offences by the respondent/accused by producing oral and documentary evidence. However, the learned Sessions Judge without properly appreciating the evidence passed the impugned judgment, only convicted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC , though he is liable for punishment for the other offences.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the record, it reveals that basing on the complaint dated 18.03.2007 lodged by the P.W-1, who is the father-in-law of the victim i.e., P.W-3, registered a crime vide Crime No.58 of 2007 against the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 354 , 427, 294(b) and 506 of IPC and 323 IPC .
7. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as PRC No.17 of 2007. Subsequently, the said case was committed to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
