The High Court · 2025

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37ae) ot Cr.p.C., against the Judgment dated 28-'1 1-20'16 passed in sc No. zls ot zol+ on the fire of the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Between: ffi'#itft i#:T,rslfl ;"f r norot a r, caste : Vadra, occ. ca rpenter, R/o. Ba nsarpet, AND ... Appe llanUAcc used The State of Telangana, rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ... Res po n denUCom pla ina nt Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. T Sujan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : SriArun K.umar Dodla, Additional public The Court delivered the foltowing: t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER AND J' ANrL KUMAR THE HoNouRABLE "piJ-t'"t'"E OF 20L8 .1189 AL AP No CRI MIN JUD GMEN i (pcr Hon'blc Sri Justice K surender) T

1. The Appeal, is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 28'11' 2016' lt S'C'No'279 of 2Ol4' on the file ellant was of Principal Sessions Judge' Adilabad' The app convicted for the offence of murder punishable under Sectron 3O2 of iPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment'

2.HeardlearnedcounselfortheappellarrtarLdSriArun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State '

3. P.W.15, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police' Nirmal, received a complaint from P'W'1 on 3O'10'2013 at 1 a.m., informing that P'W' l's son \'vas murdered' Crime was registered by P.W.15, and P'W' 15 handed over the investigation to P.W.17 In the complaint/ Ex'P' i, P'W'i narrated that her elder 4- son, Syed Wajeed (deceased) had dinner at 9 p'm'' and left the house at 9:30 p.m. Around 10:45 p.m., her younger son, Syed Azeen/P.W.2, carne home and informed her that there was al 'ri!${i:.t,1,ligf}1.1p1ry6.;,1:,, :1 z unknown dead body which looks like his elder brother. Immediately, she rushed to Gandhi Chowk area artd found that the dead body was that of her elder son, Syed Wajeed. There was a cut injury on the dead body. According to p.W. 1, some unknown accused committed murder of deceased by stabbing him with a knife. At the time of incident, brother_in_law/Syed Raheem (p.w.s), pan shop boy (p.w.3), and some others witnessed the incident. At about 10:30 p.m., the murder was committed, and the accused fled. 5. P.W. 17 went to the scene of offence, secured the scene of offence, and seized material objects at the scene. Inquest was conducted, and the dead body was shifted to Government Nirma1 hospital for post mortem examination P.W. 13/post mortem Doctor conducted post mortem examination ald opined that the death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock, due to polytragma. 6 P.W. 13 found the following injuries: "1. Laceration of lO x lO x 6 cms. Extending from left side of neck to medium part of neck. 2. A stab injury of 5 x 3 x4 cms over left side of abdomen. 3. A stab injury of 5 x 3 x 4 cms, g cms lateral to umbilicus on left side with small intestines and omentum J herniating outside (small and large intestines came out of the stomach)' 4. Following lacerations v/ere present: a. 1x1cms on the left uPPer eYe lid' b 2x1 cms on left cheek' c' 2x1 cms near left niPPle' d. 3x1 cms on the left side chest near epigastflum' e 2xl cms on the left biceps medial side' f' 3x2 cms on the left triceps medial side' Hemoperitoneam of around 15OO ml present "

7. The appeilant was apprehended by P'W'17 at 7 a'm' on 30.10.20 13' On the basis of appellant's confession' his torn shirt/M.O.16, which was worn by him at the time of commission of offence, was seized' The appellalt was then arrested and produced before the concerned Court' 8. On 02.11.20 13, i'e', two days thereafter' the cell phone of the appellant was seized from P'W'6' in the presence of independent u ilnesses' g.P.W.|T,thenhandedovertheinvestigationtoP'W'18' whoconcludedtheinvestigationandliledachargesheet. 1O. Learned counsel appearing for the appellalt would submlt that, eye witnesses/P.Ws.3, 4, 5, and 8 are all plalted by the prosecution. According to the prosecution case, the appellant 4 \ was a stranger names of In fact, they incident. In to the witnesses, however, test identification onducted. In the absence of test identilication e background of incident taking place at 10:30 the identity of the appellalt, for the first time Further, no descriptive by aly of the witnesses. pafade was not c parade, arld in th p.m. in the night, rn the Court cannot be believed. particulars of the appellalt were given 10. Learned public prosecutor submits that the P.Ws.3, 4, and 5 were mentioned in the complaint. have identified the appellalt and also narrated the the said circumstaaces, conviction cannot be interfe 11. P.W.3 stated that around l0;30 p.m., while he was ciosing his pan shop, he heard the deceased shouting thacha bachao, (uncle help). Immediately, p.W.5 rushed and interfered to save the deceased, however, the appellant attacked the deceased with a knife and stabbed him multiple times in the stomach. P.W.3 stated that he had seen the accused under the street lights, while he was running away. In the cross examination, P.W.3 admitted that he did not see the appellant prior to the incident. He does not know whether the appellarit and the deceased had any acquaintaxce with one another. Further, P.W.3 was examined on the same night around 11 or 11:30 p.m., but he did not mention the identity particulars of the red with. ) appeilant, nor lvas he ca1led to indentify the appellant in any test identification parade' P'W'3 admitted that P'W'2' who is the brother of the d'eceased' is his friend' 12. P.W'4 stated that he also heard the deceased ":"": 'chacha bachao', and when he went there' he saw the appellant stabbing the deceased' When P'W'S intervened' he was pushed aside and the appellant stabbed the deceased' multiple times in the stomach, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased The appellant also tried to attack P'W'S' In the cross examination' P'W'4 admitted that the distalce between the place where the deceased was attacked and the place where he was standing was around 20 to 25 feet' P'W'4 further admitted that he did not give any i'dentity particulars of the assailant, and he was not called to any test identification parade. 13. P.W.S also narrated that he fisard fhe deceased shout 'chacha bachao', and when he rushed near Gandhi Chowk' he saw the appellant attacking the deceased" P'W's interfered and caught hold of the left hand' of the appellant and a piece of cloth of deceased's shirt came into the hand of P'W'5' However, the appelant allegedry stabbed the deceased multiple times in the stomach. In the cross examination, p.W.5 admitted that the 6 house of p.W. 1 arrd his house are side by side. He did not give any complaint to the police after the incident. He went home and fell unconscious and after two hours, he regajned his consciousness. p.W.S further admitted that he did not take P.W. 1 to the police station. His statement waS recorded around 4 or 5 a.m. on the said day. Further, no descriptive particulars of the appellant were given by p.W.S. 74. P.W.6 is the friend of the appellant. According to his statement, the next day morning, apperant came to p.w.6,s house and informed him that he had committed murder of a muslim boy at Gandhi Chowk. p.W.6 further stated that after informing, appellant went away and one hour thereafter, p.w.6 was ca_lled to come to the house of an Advocate, Malla Reddy, where the appellant handed over his cell phone, which was subsequently seized by the police. In the cross_examination, P.W.6 denied the suggestions made by the counsel. 15. P.W.8 is not an eye witness to the incident, however, he stated that he noticed a person in a pool of blood neal Gandhi Chowk. He has seen the appellant near the scene in a dark place. The next day, around Z a.m., the appellant called him on his mobile phone and stated that he had committed murder of the deceased, on the previous day. {I 7 who went to the scene at . According to P'W'16' Police O:30 P.m. on 29'10'2013' At

16. P.W'16 is the PhotograPher 1O:30 P.m., ald took PhotograPhs was Present at the scene around 1 their instance, he had taken photographs' 17. Though the Police were present at the scene at 10:30 p.m., theY d'id not record the statement of any of the witnesses at the scene' Crime was registered only when the Police received the complaint/Ex'P'1 from P'W'1 at 1 a.m' There rs no explanation by the Investigating Officers/P'W'15 and 17 as to the reason for not registering the FIR' when they came to know about the death of the deceased at 10:30 p'm' itself' as evidenced by P'W' 16 / photographer' ls.IthastobeseenwhetherthepresenceofP.Ws.4,5,and6 at the scene can be believed' 19. P.Ws.3, 4, and' 5 stated' that they heard the deceased shout 'chacha bachao', and P'W'S intervened and caught hold of the appellant's left hald and a piece of cloth of appellant's shirt came into his hand' P'Ws'4 ald 5 are related to the deceased. It is not known as to why all three witnesses have not informed about the incident, either to P'W'2 or P'W'1' In fact, P.W.5 was a neighbor to P.W.i. His conduct is highiy suspicious. He stated that he went home after witnessing the 8 incident and became unconscious for two hrrurs, thereafter, he came back to the scene. The said statement given by p.W.S calnot be believed, as it is not the conduct of witnessed the crime ard was . ,"ierruo. .;J""."".:::: related to the deceased and p.W. l. 20. The appellant i:s a stranger to p.Ws.3, 4, ald 5. The descriptive particulars of the appelarrt were not given to the Police when they were examined. The appellalt was arrested at 7 a.m-, the next day morning. However, p.W.6 stated that the appellant came to his fi6u5s in the morning ald informed him about the incident, thereafter, he went to the house of an Advocate, where the appellalt handed over the cell phone to P.W.6. The said Advocate, Malla Reddy, was not examined by the Police. p.W.B stated that on the next day, around Z a.m., the appella,t called him on phone and informed him that he had killed the deceased. If p.W. 17 had arrested the appellant at 7 a.m., it is highly doubtful that a phone call would have been made by the appellant at the same time to p.W.B. Further, the evidence of p.W.6 runs contrary to the case of the prosecution regarding appellant,s arrest. There is no clarit5r as to when the appella,t went to the house of p.W.6, and from there to the house of an Advocate, Malla Reddy, where he called o According to P.w.6, and then handed over the cel1 ptrone' P.W.17, ttre aPPellant u'as The Advocate Mal1a ReddY was not during investigation' affested from his house at 7 a.m. examined bY the Police

21. The events narrated by the witnesses regarding the (i) Police bei.ng present at the scene at 10:30 p'm' itself' as stated by the photographer' (ii) the fact ttrat no information was given by P.Ws.3 to 5 to P'W'1' despite beingrelated to the deceased' (iii) the version of P W 6 that the next morning the appellant went to his house and from there to advocate's house' (iv) the assertion of the Investigating Officer that the arrest of appellant all these was effected at 7 a'm' on 30.10.2013 itself circumstances, wtren viewed together' are contradictory to one alother. The conduct of P'Ws'3 to 5 creates any amount of doubt regarding their presence at the scene and them witnessing the appellant allegedly stabbing the deceased' The immediate reaction of anyone, q,ho is related. to the person who was attacked with a knife, is either to inform the Police or parents of the deceased, or to shift the deceased to the hospital' P.ws.3 to 5 neither took the deceased to the hospital, nor informed the parents of the deceased or the poiice. t0 .to by P.Ws.3

22. During the course of investigation, no test identification parade was condUcted, though the appellarrt was a stranger to p.Ws.3 to 5. The conduct of p.Ws.3 to 5, coupled with the absence of tes t identification parade, creates any amount of doubt regarding the correctness of the version given 5 about the identity of the appellant. Admittedly, the witnesses, p.Ws.3 to 5 never saw the appellant a_fter the incident, but indentified him in the Court nearly one year ald ntne months, alter the incident. The incident happened on 31.10.20i3, and the identification of the appellant by p.Ws.3 to 5 in t]le Court was in the month of July, 2015. The identification of the appellaflt, cannot be relied on to base conviction, when all the circumstances as discussed Iooked into collectively. above are

23. Unexplained discrepalcies in the case of the prosecution go to the root of the matter, and the earlier version was in fact, suppressed by the prosecution. Subsequently, a complaint was frled at 1 a.m., and the FIR reached the Court at 2:30 a.m. However, as seen from Ex.p.20, there is a correction of the date. 24 ' For the foregoing discussion, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant since the prosecution did not prove the case against the appelrant beyond reasonabre doubt. 11

25. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed' Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled' sd'- c'v' MA ARJUN A VARMA tNT RE GISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// & I CTION OFFICER To, I H? illilBi:ffi i :, ; }:,'s#'f-{t$i| "s i';I'sup.,.int"1a:ltr ?::XiL:::I,ff"3::i ror the state or reransana at i r*o CCs to Publtc rr , Blilti3 tti"'l"'"" Kumar' Advocate [oPuc] 6. Two CD CoPtes "i'"'l{ii'oo "' o u d D istri ct DL/PlP U. / HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 r,-.r-.::_ -t i'\'- :; i,'{ \ a 1E SEP 206 ( t o -; -). , \ ;,J .t * ,,2' .' '/, . a -.- - - -'--;- JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1189 ol 2018 * a ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 1?c