THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.582 OF 2015

ORDER

The State has preferred the present Appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned III Additional sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2008 dated 30.10.2008 whereunder the respondent/accused No.6, is acuitted for the offence under Section 395 IPC.

2. Heard M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assitant Public Prosecutor and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent/accused No.6.

3. The case against the accused Nos.1 to 8 was that they committed Dacoity in the house of P.W. Nos.1 and 2. Believing the version given by P.W. Nos.1 and 2, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C. No.248 of 2007 convicted the accused Nos.1 to 6 and acquitted the accused Nos.7 and 8 by its judgment dated 07.02.2008.

4. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2008 and accused Nos.4 and 5 have preferred Criminal Appeal No.22 of 2008 and the accused No.6 herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2008. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Appeals on 30.10.2008, by way of separate judgments.

5. Aggrieved by the above said judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, State filed three Appeals viz., Crl.A. Nos.1885 of 2009, 1865 of 2009 and 582 of 2015 before this Court and this Court dismissed the Appeals viz., Crl.A. Nos.1885 of 2009 on

27.02.2024 and 1865 of 2009 on 15.10.2024.

6. Learned Additiona Session Judge found that the accused No.6 presence in the said incident cannot be believed mainly on the ground that apart from the alleged confession, there is no other evidence supporting their presence in the house. Further, P.Ws-1 and 2 have given different versions regarding accused No.6.

7. Learned Sessions Judge found that the version of P.Ws.1 to 4 is that six persons participated in the offence, however, two others were implicated subsequently. The said false implication was believed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused Nos.7 and 8.

8. The confession made by the accused Nos.4 and 5 was not believed by the Sessions Judge since there were discrepancies.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed about the dismissal of the other two Criminal Appeals viz., Criminal Appeal No.1885 of 2009 on 27.02.2024 and Criminal Appeal No.1865 of 2009 on 15.10.2024 filed by the State against accused Nos.2, 4 and 5.

10. In cases of acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another1 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 analyzed. 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.

11. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring 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

1 (2022) 8 SCC 536

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