APHC010663892010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 99 OF 2010 Between: 1. THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND 1. NALLAPILI KRISHNA KUMAR, S/o.LATE RAMA RAO, RELLY STREET, KOTHAPET, VIZIANAGARAM. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372, 374(2) and 378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment in CC.No.187/2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, Dt.22.08.2008 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the Order of acquittal and convict the accused (Respondent) for the offences with which he was charged for the following among others. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 2292 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 271 days in presenting the appeal against the Order of acquittal of the accused/ respondent in CC.No.187/2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, Dt.22.08.2008. Counsel for the Appellant: 2 1. SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SRI T NAGARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 1. This appeal, under section 378(1) & (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) is preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, by its judgment dated 22.08.2008, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.10, were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined, and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. 3. The essential facts, succinctly stated and forming the basis of the present appeal, are as follows: The prosecutrix, Madugula Gurappa, is an unmarried woman. The accused resides in the same locality and belongs to the same caste as the prosecutrix. It is alleged that about five years ago, the accused became engaged to another woman from Srikakulam, but despite this engagement, developed an intimate relationship with the prosecutrix. The accused is said to have had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the promise of marrying her. Subsequently, when the accused failed to fulfil his promise and raised objections to the marriage, the prosecutrix, in distress, consumed pesticide poison on the night of 25.03.2006. She was immediately shifted to Sukhibhava Hospital, Vizianagaram, for treatment. Following this 3 incident, she lodged a report with the police. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer registered her report as a case under the above crime number, arrested the accused, and, upon completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet. 4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 417 of IPC against the accused. Upon his appearance before the Court, copies of the relevant documents were furnished to him as mandated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing the submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The Trial Court examined the accused as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to enable him to consider the evidence that had been led on the part of the prosecution and he denied the evidence and examined D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2. After conclusion of arguments and upon perusal of the material, the Trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State contends that the Trial Court erred in failing to appreciate that the essential ingredients of offences under Section 417 and 420 of the IPC were made out. He further contends that the PW.1’s testimony clearly stated that the accused promised her that he would marry her, and later he denied marrying her, and the Trial Court's disregard of prosecution evidence renders the acquittal unsustainable. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused contends that the case has been fabricated against the respondent; PW.1’s testimony lacks corroboration from other prosecution witnesses, and that the Trial Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution’s version. The learned counsel accordingly supports the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court. 4 8. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and carefully perused the material available on record, including the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. 9. The point for determination is: Was the Assistant Sessions Court justified in acquitting the accused? P O I N T: 10. Before re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary here to mention the power of the Appellate Court regarding interference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of A. Shankar V. State of Karnataka 1, at paragraph 26 of the judgment, has held as follows: "26. It is settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances the appellate court, under compelling circumstances, should reverse the judgment of acquittal of the court below if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. the conclusions of the court below are contrary to the evidence on record or its entire approach in dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal leading to miscarriage of justice or its judgment is unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case. While dealing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that acquittal by the court below bolsters the presumption of his innocence." 11. In State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the power of Appellate Court to interfere in an appeal against acquittal, after adverting to various earlier decisions on this point, has concluded as under: "16.....while exercising the powers in appeal against the Order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the Order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at 1 (2011) 6 SCC 279 2 (2007) 3 SCC 755 5 by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with commission of the crime he is charged with.” 12. With the above principles in mind, this Court analyze the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the Trial Court in interfering with the Order of acquittal. 13. As evident from the judgment rendered in C.C.No.187 of 2006, the Trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court recorded specific reasons for recording the acquittal in respect of the said offence. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, P.W.1/the victim preferred Criminal Revision Case No. 1724 of 2008 before this Court. Pursuant to the Order dated 14.11.2022, this Court disposed of the said revision petition. 14. A perusal of the record reveals that the State preferred the present appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment rendered in C.C. No. 187 of 2006. In the appeal, it is contended that the Trial Court committed an error in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. It is further urged that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were clearly established by the prosecution against the accused. The Trial Court examined the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC, and proceeded to consider whether the accused had intentionally induced the prosecutrix and had sexual intercourse with her under the false promise of marriage, and thereafter evaded the said promise. 15. P.W.1 had already advanced all the contentions in Crl.R.C. No. 1724 of 2008 that have been raised by the appellant in the present appeal, and this Court has duly considered those submissions. This Court has recorded 6 detailed reasons in paragraphs 22 and 23 of its Order dated 14.11.2022, passed in Crl.R.C. No. 1724 of 2008. In doing so, this Court followed the principles laid down in the Ram Briksh Singh and others vs. Amkbika Yadav and another3 and also in Sama Subhash Reddy vs. S. Lalitha and others4 . This Court, in Para 21 of the aforesaid Order, recorded a finding that the learned Magistrate of the First Class, Vizianagaram, had rightly appreciated the evidence on record, and that it cannot be said that the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate was perverse or contrary to law. While dismissing Crl.R.C. No. 1724 of 2008 filed by P.W.1/the victim, this Court categorically held that even according to the testimony of P.W.1, she was aware that the accused had, about five years before the alleged offence, been betrothed to one Harathi of Srikakulam. This Court further observed that a woman of reasonable prudence, in such circumstances, would naturally have questioned the accused as to how he could propose marriage to her while placing the life and commitment of Harathi in peril. Upon a careful appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, this Court recorded a categorical finding that the allegations levelled against the accused appeared highly improbable, and that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 could not withstand the test of judicial scrutiny. 16. This Court has further observed that the alleged act of P.W.1 in consuming pesticide poison cannot be attributed to the accused, as there is no material link in the evidence to establish such a connection. Upon a careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court held that the sole testimony of P.W.1, alleging that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. After considering the rival contentions advanced by both parties and upon a thorough appraisal of the record, this Court upheld the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 3 (2004) 7 SCC 665 4 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 779 AP 7 17. In light of the foregoing circumstances, and upon a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence, the Trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 417 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt, a conclusion that was upheld by this Court in its Order dated 14.11.2022 in Crl.R.C. No. 1724 of 2008. Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the said offence. 18. In Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena @ Tailor Seena V. State of Karnataka5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the scope of section 378 of the Code as under: “Section 378 Cr.P.C. enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 Cr.P.C., speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, the presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. Consequently, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the Court of the first instance has its advantages in delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it. Still, it is duty bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both a possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty and the advantage of having seen the witnesses. 19. So far as the main issue is concerned, that scope of acquittal appeal is well defined by now by series of decisions and the same is not to be repeated time and again, however, one of the recent decision in case of Harbeer Singh V. Sheeshpal6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that mere fact that another view could also have been possible that cannot be a ground to reverse the acquittal. The powers of High Court are wide enough to turtle the acquittal order, however, some parameters are well defined by series of decisions in which this Court is of the considered opinion that State has not made out any case which would permit this Court to exercise such wide powers. Neither any material irregularity is pointed out nor any perversity is 5 2021 (15) SCALE Pg. 184 6 (2017) CriLJ 169 8 reflecting on the contrary it is reflecting that there is an application of mind on the part of learned judge as the entire material on record has been dealt with specifically and the principle of appreciation of evidence appears to have been rightly undertaken by the Court below and therefore when such eventuality is reflecting sitting in a jurisdiction dealing with an order of acquittal court is of the opinion not to interfere with such exercise. The relevant observations of the aforesaid decision in paras: 10 and 11 (Cri.L.J.) are reproduced herein after: "10. The above principle has been reiterated by this court in a number of judicial decisions and the position of law that emerges from a comprehensive survey of these cases is that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this court will not interfere with the judgment of the High Court unless the same is clearly unreasonable or perverse or mainfestly illegal or grossly unjust. The mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. 11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and it never shifts. Another golden thread that runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view that is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 20. Considering the aforesaid set of circumstances and in view of the conjoint reading of the conclusion arrived at in co-relation with the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution makes out no case to establish a definite guilt of the respondent / accused. 21. It is a settled principle of law that if the Trial Court takes the view, it should not be reversed, even if another view is possible. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible one. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to reverse the Trial Court's finding. 22. The Trial Court rightly reached its conclusion, providing sound and justifiable reasons. Therefore, the appellant’s request for interference lacks merit. A re-appreciation of the evidence reveals no misdirection or 9 misinterpretation by the Trial Court. Upon careful reconsideration, there is no flaw in the findings of fact by the Trial Court. Therefore, the acquittal of the respondents cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the appeal against the acquittal is dismissed, and the Order of acquittal is confirmed, and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. 23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2010 fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. The judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, in Calendar Case No.187 of 2006, dated 22.08.2008, stands confirmed. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 03.11.2025 MS 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 99 of 2010 Date: 03.11.2025 MS