HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO | 228 oF 2010 Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C against the Judgement dated 19.03.2009 in S.C.No.41B of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...APE LLANT/PETITIONER AND '1 . Banoth Moilal, S/o Likya, Agriculture R/o Govindarala Village, Khammam Dist' 2. Banoth Raii, W/o Moilal, Agriculture Fi/o Govindarala Village, Khammam Dist' ...RESPODENTS/ACCUSED Counsel for the Appellant: PUBLIG PROSECUTOR (TG) Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered of the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE JUSTICE G' SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 228 0F 2010 JUDGMENT: Appellant-State filed the present Criminal Appeal by invoking the provision under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment dated 19'03'2009 renderedinS.C'No.418of2008whereinandwherebythePrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, acquitted the accused Nos'1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that keeping the previous disputes in mind, on 05.1O'2007 at 1 1 00 hours' A-2 abused the complainant in fi1thy language and at about 14'30 hours, A-1 when to the complainant and made gestures insulting her modesty by showing his private organ and also abused her and tried to hold her saree. Hence, the case' This Court perused the entire impugned judgment and also heard the arguments' In view of the delay of 24 hours in giving report to the police' not specihca-lly mentioning in the FIR about the utterance of the abusivewordsbyA-2atthetimeofincident,thenon-examination of neighbourers and also the fact that there is no independent evidence to corroborate the testimonies of P'Ws' I and 2' the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons' The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are well in accordance with law and the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. 2 Further, in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the Iinding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is pointing towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibiiity of two views and one view' which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court' ln Mrinal Dols u, Stdte of Tripurat the Apex Court held as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the frnal court of fact, is fu11y competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision ln other words, law'does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour o[ the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on ttre basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal' There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found ald to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also reviewlhlconclusion arrived at by the 1 (2O11) 9 Sc.C 479 3 trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquitta-l is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has igrrored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored materia.l documents like dying declaration/ report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials p1aced." ln Maloth SomaraJu u, Sto:te of Andhra Pradesh2 lhe Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care. In view of the judgments referred to above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. \ t I , (2O11) 8 SCC 63s 4 Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 19.03.2009 passed in S.C.No.418 of 2OO8 on the lile of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem. Miscellaneous applic4tions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.CH.VENKATESHWARU LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khamamm District. (with records) 2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies gbr t'.x'./ I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0910212021 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.228 of 2010 DISMTSSING THE CR!MINAL APPEAL 0 0 t4m 2021 DAT * * TA 14. S E kl C) oo ( z