Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2019 · The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 489(1) of crpc praying that in the circumstances -0" stated in the affidavit fired. in support of tre peiition, the High corrt ,uv pleased to grant interim bair^to the petitioner/appeilant for a peiiod or i s Jrv'. i trom 01 I 0612O23 to 1 5 I O6t 2023. " <'- ) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 389(1) of CrPC praying that in the circumsiances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in SC.No.2gO of 2014 dated 0810412019 on the file of lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and.release the petitioner on bail pending Crl.A.No.348 ol 20j9. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 389(1) of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against petitioner in SC No. 290 of 2014 on the file of the lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad dated 08/04/2019 and release the petitioner on bail pending the final d isposal. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 389(1) of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence of imprisonment, dated: 0810412019 passed in S.C.No.290/2014 on the file of lV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and release the Petitioneri Appellant No.'l on bail pending disposal of Criminal Appeal. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 430(1) of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A.2 on Bail by suspending the execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner in Judgment dated 08-04-2019 passed in S.C.No.290 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Crl.A.No.348 of 2019. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 430(1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A3 on bail by suspending the execution of the sentence of impiisonment imposed against the petitioner in Judgment dated OBlO4l2O19 passed in SC No 290 oI 2014 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Crl A No 348 of 2019. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section a30(1) of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be a"' t'l pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A4 on bail by suspending the execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner in judgment dated 0810412019 passed in sc.No 290/2014 on the file of the court of fnelv nooiiionat Metropolitan sessions Judge at Hyderabad, pending disposar of the cRLA.No 34812019 Counsel for the f,ppellant No.1: SRI MOHD MUZAFFER ULLAH KHAN Counsel for the Appeltant Nos.2 to 4: SRI AMMAJI NETTEM Counsel for the Respondent: pUBLIC pROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER And HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.328 and 348 OF 2Ot9 COMMON WDGMENTi(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2Ol9 was hled by A5 and A6,.and Criminal Appeal No.348 of 2OI9 was flled by A1 to ,A,4. 2 Both the appeals are heard and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment since the appellants are accused in S.C.No.29O of 2Ol4 on the Iile of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

3. P.W. 1-Junaid Khan is the defacto complainant. He went to the police station and informed the police around 1,15 p.m. about the murderous assault on his brother, namely Nihal Khan, by the accused, resulting in Nihal Khan's (deceased) death.

4. According to the complaint, P.W. I stated that he is a native of Qazees village, Ja-loon Zllla, Uttar Pradesh State, and that at about 11 years ago, he, along with his family and parents, came to Hyderabad and'settled in Chota Bazar, Golconda, Hyderabad. His brothers are working as carpenters and also drive autos, eking out 2 a livelihood. One boy, Lakhan Singh (P.W.4), aged 14 years, a native of Uttar Pradesh, is learning and working as a helper in carpentry work. He is residing near Fateh Darwaza a_long with his mother. On

07.Og.2Ol3, P.W.4 took a small cycle on lire from A6, who has a shop styled "Yaseen Cycle Taxi" at Chota Bazar.

5. According to P.W.4, the same cycle was returned to A6 on the same day, but 4,6 claimed that P.W.4 had not returned the cycle. He continuously demanded the cycle from P.W.4 :rnd visited their house. On 11.09.2013, at about 12.30 hours, while P.W. l, along with his family members and P.W.4, were attending to their work at their residence, ,4.6, A4, A5, A,1, and others came to their house, started abusing them in hlthy language, and threatened and demanded the cycle. At that, they produced P.W.4 before them and told them that they could enquire with him. Then 4,6, who was holding a stick in his hand, beat P.W. 1 on his head, due to which P.W. 1 received a' bleeding injury on his head. Then, 4,6 warned, saylnq, AGAR POLICE KO REPORT KARE THO MAAR DALENGE,, and tried to take P.W.4 with them, but p.W. I and his tamily did not a-llow them to take P.W.4 and raised objections. While so, the 3 deceased, Nihal I(han, immediately started the auto, and p.W.1, along with his mother, P.W.3, started from the house to report the matter to the police. The deceased was driving the auto, and when they reached Sadath Nagar near Baquri fornction hall, Golconda, A6, A5, Al, A4, and others, immediately holding knives/daggers and sticks, stopped the auto and started beating the deceased. When P.W.l and his family resisted, A6 caught hold of the hair of deceased, A1 stabbed the deceased on his chest, A4 and A5 stabbed him on abdomen and chest with knives, whereas other persons caused injuries on both his hands with knives. When the deceased immediately got down from the auto to rescue himself and started running, the accused chased him and caught hold of him within a short distance, again beating him with deadly weapons. Then, P.W. I and others started shouting "Bachao Bachao". Meanwhile, P.W.2 came to their rescue, and on seeing them and the public gathering, A6 and his followers ran away from the scene. Immediately, P.W.2 took the deceased in the said auto bearing No.AP l2U 8675 and went to Area Hospital, Golconda, for treatment, but the deceased died while undergoing treatment within half an hour. The said information was given to the police when 4 P.Ws.2 and 3 also accompalied P.W. 1 to the police station. P.W.2 ts the brother of P.W. 1, and P.W.3 is the mother of P.Ws.1 and 2. The narration of P.W. 1 was typed 1n English at the instance of S.Brahmachary (L.W.23) (not examined), who was then the Sub- Inspector of Police. After the complaint, P.W. 1 was referred to the hospital for treatment. P.W. 1 was treated by P.W.8/Doctor, who found a laceration of I inch x Yz inch x I inch depth on the head. According to P.W.8, who issued Ex.P7/wound certificate, injuries received by P.W. I were simple in nature.

6. P.W. l2/Inspector of Police then went to the Government Hospital at Golconda and shifted the body to the Osmania Genera-l Hospital. P.W. 12 also went to the scene of offence and preserved the scene. P.W. 12 returned to the hospital atd conducted an inquest on the body of the deceased. From the Osmania General Hospital, P.W.i2 again went to the scene of offehce, which is near Baquri Function Hall, Sadathnagar, Golconda, and conducted a scene of offence panchanama. The next day, i.e., on 12.09.2013, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy. Autopsy was conducted by P.W.9, who found 15 injuries, which were blood injuries, cut 5 injuries,and chop wounds. According to P.W.9, the injuries were possible with a weapon such as a knife.

7. The appellants were arrested by P.W.12 on 15.09.2013 from the house of Al's father-in-1aw. Confession( were recorded, and one knife was also recovered at the instance of A1. Having concluded the investigation, a charge sheet was hled against all the appellants for the offences under Sections L47,148,3O2,3O7, and 341 rlw 149 of IPC.

8. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/Al to A6 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offences under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC. Further, Al to -.{6 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 3O2 r/w L49 of IPC. A6 was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and under Sections 324 r/w 149 of IPC. A1 to ,{6 were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under Sections 341 r/w 149 of IPC. Further, Al was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence 6 under Section 25(1)(El) of the Indian Arms Act. However, the Iearned Sessions Judge found all the appellants not guilty of the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behaf of the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses, and apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no other evidence against any of the appellants. There is any amount of contradiction amongP.Ws.l, 2, and 3, and further, they have developed their version during the course of their examination in the court. Though no incident was narrated in the complaint to have taken place on

08.09.2013, 09.O9.2Ot3, and 10.09.2013, however, the witnesses have deliberately improved their case to falsely implicate the appellants. There is no independent witness who was examined by the police, though the alleged murder took place on a busy road in the afternoon when there would have been severa-l persons on the road. l,earndd counsel further argued that though specific overt acts were attributed to some of the appellants in the complaint, however, during the course ofthe trial, a general speaking allegation was made about arl the appellants stabbing the deceased. In view of tt_r 7 such discrepant evidence and arso the delay in the complaint reaching the Court, it can only be inferred that a false case has been filed against A1 to 46. l,earned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments: Krishaegowda and others V. State ofKarnatakar ii| Lallu Maujhi and anothei V. State of Jharkhand2 iiil NarasapuramBalaiah V. State of Andhra pradesh3 ivl D. Thamodaran V. Kandasamy and anothera v) Pappu V. State ofHaryanas vi) Nilesh Kashyap V. State of Chhattisgarh6 vii) MiddelaPanzaiah V. State of A.p., rep., by its public Prosecutor, High Court of A.p., Hyderabadz viii) Eknath Ganpat Aher and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra and Orss ix) Suraj Pal V. State of U.Pe x) Tajiuddin V. State of Assam and otherslo 'zorz 1z; aLo 1crt.1+z 1sc1 t zoo3 car.L.t. 9ta 'zoro 1z1nro 1crt.1 rar o zors 1r1to 1cr.y roo 1sc1 '(zors) ro scc rs: 2O2O o Supreme (Chh) 330 'zors 1r; mr1cnr.11A.p) 373 (D.8.) " zoto arR scw lto3 AIR 1955 Supreme Court 419 6 e 8

10. The witnesses have given contradictory statements about the \! incident. Instead of a narration, it is easier to follow when tabulated. The said contradictions are extracted below st. No I Incident P.W I P.W.2 P.W.3 P_W.4 P.W.5 P.W-6 Ex.P5

08.09.20 13- warning incident P.W.3 stated that three and a half years back, at I l:OO AM, 46, along others, came to her house and enquired with P.W.l about the whereabout s of P.W.4 demalded the cycle. The accused Save warning threatened wlth dire consequenc es, the place. a P.W-4 stated that he did not Bo to the shop on 08.09.20 13. That P.W.2 visited house in evening retumin g of the cycle to A6. That P.W.2 said that returned cycle. P.W.l stated that all the accused persons, at 10:00 AM, came to hls enquired about P.w.4, demanding the return o[ the bicycle. However, since P.W.4, employed at his shop, was on leave at time, P.W.l rnformed them of his absence and away. Thc accused insrsted that the bicycle be retumed by P,W,I, S P.W.4 was his employee. P.W.2 stated 08.09.20 r3, around 1O:00 AM, all the accused came to their house and iIIformed P.W.4 had neither paid the rent nor returned thc said bicycle In response, ?.w _2 informed the accused that unaware of whether P.W.4 had bicycle on rent- Upon hearing this, the accused begarr abLrsing filthy l,anguage, and P.W- I pacified the situation. A6 claimed he would kill if he did not get the rycle back. He a.lso stated that the accused 'o 1zozz1 t scc :ss However, the 08.09.20l3 incident was neither mentioned in the complaint nor in his Section 164 Cr,P-C statements. 9 P.W.3 did before the regarding 08.09.2013 incident- She admitted the same in her cross- exam inatio n persons

09.09.20l3 10.o9.2013. In his cross examination, P.W.2 did before the police about trle accused dema:rding the cycle on 08.09.2013. However, in statement recorded Section 161 Cr.P,C., P.W-2 not described t}le incident occurred on 08.09.2013 stated that fact, Present at their shop on that day altd a conversation with 46. P.W.2, in his cross- examinatron, stated that he did not inform the police that Mouzam, along with 46, came on 08.09.2013, 09.09.2013. In cross- exarnina tion, P.W.4 did not before police t-hat he was on and did not go to the shop 08.09.20 13, and he also did not before police P.W.2 visiting enquirin g about cycle. Proved through LO (P.w.l2) The Investigation Officer, in his statements, disclose The Investigation Officer, in cross- examination, stated that ..i

11.O9.20 l3: rtt.Eptirt t..tc .r.r P.W.4 !9!r P.W.l'. !tsqp 10 P,W.3 stated that the accused take P.w.4 and P.w.1 intervened and asked to call the police or P.W.4',s mother. arlything related to the 08.09.20 t 3 incident. P.W.1 stated accused came to their attempted to catch hold of P.W.4, demanding the retum of the cyclc. At point, P.W.l intervened and informed the accused that P-W.4's father had passed away four months eallier, and iI they had any dispute regarding the cycle, could either P.W.4',s mother or approach the police. P.W.2 stated before him as ln Ex. DI (I61 Cr.P.C. statement). The I.O. did particularly specify anythrng related P-W.2's statements. P.W.2 stated around ll:30 AM or l2:OO noon, accused came to their begarr abusing filthy language. Hc fu rther stated that the accused attempted to tal<e P.W.4 them, P.W. I tn tervened unless they ca-lled the police P.W.4's mother, he would not permit them to tal<e P.W.4 custody. P.W.4 stated that he went to the shop L |.O9.20 13, and that atl accused came to demand return cycle. That P.W.4 that he returned the cycle and paid charges. P.W_4 did not anything P.W. t requesti ng the accused- P.W.5 sta Led 1 r.09. 20 t3, betwee n I I :00 AM 12 00 noon, visited house- P.W. 1. DurIn g that time, 46, panied four or others, approa P.W.1 P.W.4 d over 11 P.W.3 stated that she did not inform the about the accused trying take away P.W-4 and interventio n of P.w,l. P.W.4, cross- exarnina stated that he did not before potice that the accused came on r r.09_20 13 and demand cycle, or that he informed accused returnin g cycle. return of the cycle. ln his Sectio n 161 Cr.P-C statem ent, P.W.5 stated accuse d cycle, P.W.1 alread v return ed the to A6 paylng chalge s. The mentioned in the complaint P,W. t. P.W.l mentioned in his section 164 Cr.P.C statement P-W. 1, in his cross- exaunrnation, stated that he inlormed poljce about the attempt to take away the P.W.4. P.W.2, in his cross- exam in atio n , stated that he did not inform the police about the accused trying to take away P.W.4 and about P.W.l requesting the accused to either call the police or P-W-4',s mother before takDg P.W,4 into custody. However, P.W.2, rn his Section l6l Cr-P.C. statement, stated that 11.o9.2013, at 12 noon, A6 and his followers A1, A2, 43, A4, and A5, who are residents o[ Golconda Fort :rrea, came to their shop. A6 started abusing and demalding P.W.4 return cycle- Then, P-W,I requested the accused not to harass or threaten- Proved through I.O However, the lnves tigating Ofircer stated The investigatio n officer did The investiga (P.w.12)

3. Attack on PW.l a!d IEtervent Parerts a.nd silters at P.W.l'8 shoD that P.W.l mention any attempt by the accused to take away P.W.4, nor did he state that P.W.4's faiher had passed away four months prior. P.W.l stated that ,{6 lifted a stick and assaulted him, due to received a head injury. The accused also assaulted their hsts all ove! body. Then his parents, brothers, artd sisters, who were present at that time. intervened. ln his cross exalnination, P.W. I stated informed the sarne to the police. The mentioned in the complaint 72 not discuss P.W.3',s statements- officer did not discuss P.W.4',s stateme P.W.3 stated that ,6l.6 took a sdck from car'pentry shop ard P_w. I head. P.W. I received bleeding injuries. P.W,2 stated that A6 took a stick and struck P.W. I on the head, causing a head mjury. The other accused assaulted P.W.l with their hartds. Upon hearing the commotion, members ca rne house into the shop. family P.W 4 stated that 46 annoyed , lifted a stick, and beat P.W.l on head. P.W. I received a bleedrng injury, and all accused beating him with hands. P W.5 stated A6 others threat to kill took a s Lick P.W.I on the head. That P.W.1 receive he ad rnJury. P.W. 8ls r P.W. I's v. Ex.P d certif icate, h s injuri i natu The Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 states that A6 hit P.W.I with a shouted, "MA]N TUJHE MAAR DALUNGA," All brotiers P_W.3 stated in her cross- examinatio n tl.at she state before the polrce about A6 striking P.W.I on the head P.W.4, cross- examina tion, stated that he did not before Police No onrissi on. P W.5, in his Scctio n 161 Cr. P. C statem ent, stated 73 farnily members rushed to t}te workshop entrance, A6 striking P.w.l on the head with a stick- Proved through LO (P.w.12) The I.O. stated ttrat P.W.l did not state that all the accused assaulted him, upon parents and sisters intervened seParated t}lem- 1 1. The evidence of the witnesses about going to the Langerhouse Police Station also is suspicious. Though p.Ws.t, Z, ani 3 claim that P.w. l, the deceased, and p.w.3 went to the Langerhouse police Station to complain about the appellants, on the ground of jurisdiction, Langerhouse police asked them to proceed to Golkonda Police Station. P.w.3 further stated that they requested securitJr, but the Langerhouse Police did not provide any security. No policeman was exemined from the Langerhouse police station to speak about the said incident. In fact, the version given by p.Ws.l to 3 regarding their visit to the Langerhouse police station initially was denied by the Investigating Ofhcer. Even in the complaint Ex.P1 that was filed, there is no mention about p.W. 1, p.W.3, and 14 the deceased going to the Langerhouse Police Station- In Ex.P1/comptaint, P.W.1 stated that after the altercation that took place at their premises around 12.30 p.m., P.W. l, P.W.3, and the deceased, while going to Golkonda Police Station, were stopped and attacked by the appellants. The entire version of P.Ws.1, 3, and the deceased going to the Langerhouse Police Station is falsihed and cannot be accepted, when the varied statements of witnesses are looked into.

12. In Ex.Pl, P.W.l had stated about A1 to A3 coming to the Baquri Function Hall where they had attacked the deceased, causing injuries on the stomach and other parts of the body. Thereafter, ,A.4 to ,4'6 came on foot to the said place and attacked the deceased. Though P.W.2 stated in his chief-examination that he had seen the appellants attacking the deceased, however, in his cross- examination he admitted that he did not state about witnessing the appellants attacking the deceased. P.W.2 has stated in the Court that he was an eyewitness to the incident, when it is admitted by him in the cross-examination that he was not present when the attack on the deceased had taken place. 15

13. The version of P.W.3 is also doubtful, since her version is contradictory to what P.W.1 had stated about the manner in which the deceased was attacked by the appellants.

14. The exact place of stabbing is also coitrary to the evidence of the witnesSes. P.W. 1 stated that the offence took place near Baquri Function Hall. He admitted that he did not observe whether there was a beauty parlour or stationery shop nearby. He also stated that he cannot say how many persons gathered at the scene. p.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not say. an5rthing about the exact place of the incident to the police. p.W.3 stated that an auto-rickshaw stopped near a marriage hail at Chota Bazar when the deceased was attacked. P.W.3 did not speak about Baquri Function HaIl specifrcally. The discrepancy gains significance since P.W.I2/investigating officer stated that he visited the scene near Baquri Function Hall. However, P.W. 12 did not examine any of the shop owners or iesidents of the Baquri Function Hall area. No rough sketch was drawn, as admitted by P.W. 12, and further, P.W.72 admitted that none of the photographs under Ex.P6, which were filed in the Court,has pictures of either Baquri Function Ha_lI 16 or Beauty fashion or Ladies Tailor, in front of which the alleged incident had taken place. P.W. 12 further admitted that none of the witnesses stated that the incident occurred near Nawaz Stationery, which was visible in Ex.P6 photograph. P.W"12 admitted as follows nP.W.l did not state before me initially he had been to the PS Langerhouse in auto rickshau and thereafier he utas told to go to the police station Golconda either in the Ex.Pl or in his statement. The P.W.1 did not state before me that theg came out from the auto rickshaw and uitnessed the alleged incident. The P.W.1 did not state before me as the other accused used to sit in the shop of Junaid (A6) as such he kneut all of them. The P.W.I did not state before me all the acansed attempted to take utag P.W.4 from his shop and that theg told that his father expired four months back and we would handouer him afier arriual of his mother or the pblice. The P.W.1 d.id not state before me all the accused assaulted him on uhich his parents, sis/ers, his interuened and separated. The P.W.I did not state before me that A1 to A3 attacked the deceased uith kniues."

15. The identity of ,A.1 to ,4.6 by P.W.1 was also in question. p.W. 1 stated that he knew all the appellants and that all of them used to sit in the shop of ,4.6. However, in the cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that on the date of the incident, he czune to know about the name of A,1 as Mouzam. P.W. 1 also stated that he knew the names of the appellants prior to the incident since he heard them from the locality people. P.W. 1 stated that he knew A1 as Mouzam, and he admitted that he did not state before the police that Mouzam 77 caused injuries to the deceased. Though p.W.3 claimed that she knew the narnes of the appellants, on the date of incident, however, she admitted in her cross-exarnination that she did not state about all the appellants calling the names at the time of the incident. It is highl5i improbable that atl the six appellants called out their names, and that during the said incident, P.W.3 came to know the names of all six assailants, this cannot be believed.

16. P.W. 12, who is the investigating officer, stated that none of the witnesses informed him that A1, whose name was Shahnawaz, was a-lso called Mouzam. A1 entered the witness box and examined himself. He stated that his name is Mohd. Mouzam, and he also marked Ex.D3/SSC certificate of A1, Ex.D4/voter ID of A.1, Ex.D5/household card belonging to A1, in which his name was shown as Mohd.Mouzam. Simitarly, Ex.D6 is the Aadhar card of A,1, in which his name is shown as Mouzam. However, in the complaint made to the polic'e, his name as Mouzam is nowhere mentioned. The name of Shahnawaz is stated, and during the course ofthe investigation,-the said Shahnawaz was identified as Mohd.Mo:uzarr^. As already discussed, there are severa_l discrepancies in the case of 18 the prosecution regarding the place of incident, the manner in which the incident took place, and the overt acts attributed, which are all discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case'of Krishnegowda and others v. State of Karnatakarl, held as follows: "The egetuitnesses haue not mentioned the names of accused 7 to 13 in any of the FIR and subsequent addition of their names afler O6-O3 91 clearlg demonstrates that it utas an afterthough| onLg to implicate them.

25. It is to be noted that all the egeuitnesses u)ere relotiues and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable euidence of independent roifnesses for the incident which took place on a public road in the broad dag light. Although there is no absolute rule that the euidence of related u;ilnesses has to be conoborated bg the euidence of independent u,,itnesses, it would be tite in la ut to haue independent u.dtnesses uhen the euidence of related egewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustuorthA. Tle minor uaiations and contradictions in the euidence of egeuitnesses utill not tilt the benefit of doubt in fauor of the accused but uhen the contradictions in the euidence of prosecution urilnesses proues to be fatal to the prosecution case tLlen those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases occused gets the benefit of doubt. 25A. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustuorthiness of euidence on record. As said bg Benthem, "taitnesses are the eges and ears of justice". In the facts on hand, ue feel that the euidence of these uitnesses is filled uith discrepancies, contradictions and improbable uersions uthich draus us to the itesistible conclusion that the euidence of these urirnesses cannot be a basis to conuict the accused-"

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lallu Manjhi and another v. State of Jharkhandt2, held as follows: " zorzlzl nro 1crt.;az 1sc1 19 '11. In the case at hand, we can neither place implicit reliance on nor totallg discard the testimong of Mannu (PW-9) as tt con neither, be colled tuholly reliable nor uhollA unretiable. Mannu is a u)itness u.tho could haue been naturallg present with his brother uhile ploughing the field. Hou.teuer, ue fi.nd his testimong to hnue been substantidllA improued at the tial tlnn tuhat it was to be@n tuith uhen tlrc' First Information Report of the incident uas lod.ged. Though at the tial Mannu alleges oll tLrc lQ. accused persons to haue dealt blows utith their respectiue ueapon-s on the bod.g of his brother Suphal Hansda, but that is certainly not conect. If 10' accused persorls lad dealt euen one blout eoch, there uould. lwue been a minimum of 1O injuries on the person of the deceased. It is the specific case of Mannu that so far as the chest injuies (fracture of ibs) are concemed, it was the result of the accused Gurua Lutuing climbed upon the bodg of the deceased afier he lnd fallen down and then pressed him against the ground. As the fracture of ibs is not accompanied by ong apparent injury on the bodg, in all probability such injuries utere not caused bg ang ueapon. The injuies could haue been caused etther by pressing hard as alleged or euen by forcefullg pushing the deceased during the course of ong scaffle. The deceased hns suffered onIA two other injuies, uthich obuiously were not caused bg three persons. So /ar as the assault on the deceased is concemed, there is so much of chaff collected bg Mannu (PW-9) in his deposition that it becom-es uery difficult, almosf impossible, to sift the grains of truth from out of the mass orf chaff of falsehood and exaggerations . "

19. In D.ThamdorarD. v. Kandasamy and anotherl3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "14. The prosecution hr.s been able to proue the tnjuies sustained by the deceased. Houteuer, serious discrepancies aise from the depositions of the proseantion witnesses. The place of incident and the sequence of euents are not proued. The ueapon recouered could not be linked to the incident. The recouery itself is not proued. There is inordinate delag in lodging the FIR, which is in addition to the lack of genuineness of the FIR doanment itself. The possibilitg of subseEtent mateiol olterations cannot be ntled out. The defence examined one independent utitness utho deposed tlwt the rod taas " 2oo3 cRt.L.r 9ta " zotsltl aro 1c.t.;:oo 1sc1 20 in the hands of PW2 uho accidentally stnrck th.e deceased uhile he intended the same on respondent No.l. h appears from the chain 9f euents and preuious enmitg betuteen the porties that tlrcre occ.urred a scuffle ulhich greu hot and led to an injury which resulted into the death. Hou-teuer, it is not correct to impute the culpabitity on the accused uthen uarious inconsistencies occltr in the euidences uhich are fatal.to the case of the proseantion."

20. In Pappu alias Gulshan v. State of Haryanar4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: '75. Wlen ue perused Ext. PH/2, the FIR registered at the instance of PW 6 as has been ightlg pointed out bg the learned counsel, PW 6 uas not able to refer to the nomes of the appellant. He Lns onlg giuen the desciption as to the assoilants uho are stated to haue ui-sited the barber shop of PW 7. Euen in his oral euidence, and in fact in the F/R if is also recorded that PW 6 stated that he uould be able to identifg the assailants if theg u_tere produced before him. Hou-teuer, no test identificotion parade u_tas held to identifg the appellant. With thot, ulhen we examine the deposition of pW 6 before the court, again ute do not find ony specific stdtement to the effect that he kneu the appellant tuell before and that het identified them prior to the date uhen he gaue his euidence before the Court. In the Court he identified tlle appellant as the person by referring to his name and that he uas the boy utho utas d.riuing the scooter on the d.ay of occurrence.

76. PW 6 made a categoical statement tlwt he did not knou the appellant beforehand, thot he did not euen knouL the assailant uho fred at the deceased, though he would state that the said bog uas in the age group of 25-3O gears and his height utas betuteen S,8,to 5'9" and was sporting a beard and tuas a person of stout phgsique. With that slender euidence, it is hightg suspiooug as to uhether at all the appellant uas the assailant along tuith ang other person..

27. In Middela Panraiah y. State of A.P1s, the Honble Division Bench of this Court held as follows: 'o 1zot51 ts scc ts: 2L ' 1 4. Reuertinq to the .facts of the case, in the tiqht of all the circumstances stated supra, the presence of pW3 'at the time cif occurrence appears to be highltt doubtfut. It is obuious that rthen thl statement of PW3 was recorded at ttLe time of inquest he did not state that he witnessed the incident and that ne is an elle_uritness to the occurrence. Had he stated so, the contents of the inquest report u-tould haue been othenuise_ Therefore, the later prosecution uersion that he u)as an ege-uitness to the ocanrrence )s iiplausible and. far_ .fetched. No explanation is forttcoming from the p,rosecution for the corrections in the time mentioned. in Exhibit pl, report, and. Exhibit P7, lIR, u.thich are.fatal to the case of the prosecution, hauinq reqard_ to the -facts and circwmstances of the case. The record- makes it manifest that the cime. taas .registered after d.eliberations bu implantinq PW3 and another as eye witnessei and. tlwt the materiol dotttments forming part of the case record. taere manipulated. to shouL that there i_s no delag in eittrcr todging the report or reqisteing the cime and tlnt the inuestigation commeiced. afi.er the reqistratio'n of the cime. suffice to salr that the prosecution iersion that pw3 is an eqewitness to the incident does not inspire confid.ence and. the circttmstances brought about from the mateial on record_ cast a solemn and reasonable doubt about the presence of pW3 and. LW4, M. Sailu, lwho was not examinedl at the scene at tLrc time of occurrence. It mag al-so be necessary to state that the FSL Repoi, Exhibit P9, uould shout that no blood b d.etected on MOS, Axe,'said. to haue been recouered pursuant to the recouery confessiotn *o.d" bg the acansed. " I I 22- on the facts of the case, as pointed out, the discrepancies in the narration of the eyewitnesses, the prosecution failing to Iix the exact location where the incident took place, 41 being narned as shahnawaz,and also theother discrepancies that a-re discussed, would go to the root of the case, making the version of the witnesses doubtful " zors1:1 nlr 1ca.1 JA.p) 373 (D.B) 22

23. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.29O of 2014 dated O8.O4.2O19 is set aside, and the appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are in jail, they are directed to be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.

24. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed. Sd/. M, VIJAYA BHASKER REGTSTRAR forNr //TRUE COPY// \ I 6EcTIoN oFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 c The IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at H erabad(with records) The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad. (By Special Messenger) Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI The Station House Officer, Golkonda Police Station, Hyderabad. One CC to Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ammaji Nettem, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri lvlohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate IOPUC] 6 7 8 o 10.Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 a COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.328 and 348 of 2019 1 HE ST41€ ( iJ 0 2 llAY '2025 ,f_7 i r::,- !,.-.\.\' i:;:--;__-;;-1.- -.- ... ALLOWING THE BOTH CRIMINAL APPEALS IZI-" LO{