The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 442 OF 2017 Appeal un,ler S;ection 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 23-03- 2017.made in S C No.761 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional District & Sessior s Judge-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions; Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict at i-B N agar Between:

1. Nazi @, Nc oh l.lazi-Ullah-Qudari, S/o. Late Masiullah Ouadri, Aged about 25 years Occ Private Employee, R/o 1904-281117186, Nawab Saheb Kunta, Jahanuma HyCerabad

2. Syed Zaheer, Si/o. Syed Ameer, Aged about 24 years, Occ- Business, R/o. 19-4, Nawab Saheb Kunta Jahanuma, Hyderabad Stale of -l-e Judicature, Hyd,:rabad

angana, Represented by its Public Prosecutlr. High Court of AND ...Appellants / A-2 and A-4 fi:',-' Counsel for the l,ppellant in Crl.A.No.362l'17: Sri C Sl aran Reddy Counsel for the tr,ppellant in Crl.A.No.442117 : Sri V Pattabhi Counsel for the F.espondent in Both the Cases : Sri Arur Kumar Dodla Addl. Prrblic Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Common Judgment: i I t I I I ; I { 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER , HON'BLE SRI JTJSTICE A}IIL KI'MAR JI'I{ANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.362 and'442 OF 2OL7 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K'SURENDERI 1. Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2Ol7 is hled by the appellants/Al' A3, A5 and ,4'6 and, Criminal Appeal No'442 of 2Ol7 is hled by ,A,2 and ,A'4.

2. 41 to 46 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 0f Ipc and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment vide judgment in 8r''lf S.C.No.761of2015dated23'o3.2olTpassedbytheXIVAdditional District & sessions Judge-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan " Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar'

3.Sinceboththeappealsarequestioningtheconvictionofthe appellants/Al to A6, both the appeals are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment'

4. Briefly, ttre facts of tl-e case are that P'W' 1, is the wife of tl.e deceased. After receiving information around 11'00 p'm on 08.01.2015, from Assistant Sub-Inspector, who was on patrolling dutyaboutamurder,P.W.lg,wenttothehospitalandobservedtlie 4 , i dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to th.r house of the deceased at 1.0() a.m, and recorded the statemt:nt of p.W. 1. In the statement nerrar-ed to p.w. 19, p.w. 1 stated that her deceased husba,d narr e11 shaik sareemuddin, was workirg as Mprc of MIM party. On OB. )1.2t015, the loca-lity persons by na,,e HzLbeeb/A3 and his wife smt' leerna Begum/A5 and others pick:cr up quarrel with the deceasecl *<1 threatened him urith dire consoquences regarding plot assignme nts. In the evening around 9.00 1t.m or 10.00 p.m, while P.W. 1 znd the deceased were present in the ]rouse having dinner, somecne ,:alled on phone asking the deceaseC to come out of the house. lhe deceased ',,vent out and shoute d "Seema Seema,. Then P.W. 1 rrent out and found A3, A5 arrd brother_in_law of Habeeb stabbing the deceased. The deceased fe1l rlown and a granite stone'vas thrown on his face. p.w. 1 shouted lor herp. The neighbors/P. W .4 ald others carne to the s cene of offence. Immediately, the brothers of p.w. 1, who are p.ws.2 and 3 were informed, and thr-.y arrived at the scene. p.Ws. I to ai shifted the deceased to 1.he owaisi Hospital for treatment. 'rhe dr:ceased was declared as brcught dead at the hospital. The reason for committing murder of the c ecr:.lsed was plot assignments in th e loceLlity. 6- l i l 4--'J 5 5 Having recorded the statement of PW. 1, PW. 19 went to the police station and registered FIR at 3.15 a.m, on O9.01.2O15' The same day, P.W. 19 again visited the house of P.W. 1 and recorded the statements of P.W.8 who is brother'of PW. 1, and P.Ws.2 and 3, who are a-lso brothers of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are neighbors, their statements were a_lso recorded. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted and ttre broken knife and other material objects were seized from the scene.

6. The appettants/Al and 43 surrendered before the concerned Court. P.W. 19 then filed requisition for police custody on. 10.01.2015. Police custody of A1 and A3 was granted for 4 days, starting from 13.01.2015. During interrogation, the motor bike of A1 and A.3 was seized. On 16.01.2015, P.W'19 apprehended A5' On 22.01.2015, A2 and A4 surrendered before P'W'19' Their confessional statements were recorded. 46 surrendered on 23.01.2015, before the concerned court. Police custody of A6 was taken for a d.ay. One motor cycle was se2ed at the instance of A6'

7. P.W. 19 frled requisition before the Magistrate/P'W'17 to conduct test identifrcation parade of 44 and A5. P.W. 1 identified A4 I 6 and A5 durirg te st identification parade proceerlings. p.W. 19, after concluding invesligation, hled charge sheet agair)st Al to 4.6 for the offence under S:ction 3O2 r/w Section 34 ol IpC and Section 2a$)@) of InciarL Arms Act.

8. Sri V.PrLttalthi, iearned Senior Counsel apperring for the appellants, zugueC that P.W. 1 is a planted witnes;s. No specilic overt acts are attritut-<:d to aly of the appellants. Frrther:, .A4 and A5 were strange rs, ald in the cross-examination ol p.W. 1, she admitted th.t ph.tographs of A.4 and A5 were sllown to her by the r!--E police prior to TII). The version of p.ws.1 to 3, thzLt the,rr h2ys shifted. the deceaseri to the hospital is a-1so doubtful, s.nce the clothes of P.ws.l to I] urer.e not stained with blood. No photographs of deceased wer( talien. The auto driver was a-lso ,ot examined, who allegedly carri:d I).Ws.1 to 3 and the body of the de<:eased to the hospital. The nost importa,t factor is that on O?.01.i)015, p.W. 19 admitted that he addressed a letter to the RMrf of r-he osmania General Hospital requesting to preserve the <lead body of the deceased, and in the said letter, he mentioned that ihe deceased was killed b1, unk,own persons. It is apparent .-hat there was no r*, 7 information about the assailants to the Inspector or to the witnesses even when the body was taken to the hospital' g. Learned Senior counsel further argued that the Investigating Ofhcer/P.W. 19,failed to call clues team or obtain frnger prints on the knife, blade, or the handle of tJle knife, though they were available at the scene. The court disbelieved the identification of A4 and A5 by P.W. 1. However, A4 and A5 were convicted' In the absence of there being arry overt acts attributed to any of the appellants, the question of conviction under Section 302 of IPC simplicitor does not arise. The Court has not taken aid of Section. 34 of IPC to convict the appellants, as such, the conviction is not fi:.-'il propef.

10. Learned Senior counsel submitted that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof' It is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt' The solitary testimony of P.W. 1 was considered by the Court below to convict A1 to ..{6' which is erroneous and has to be set aside' He relied on the a l I l I l I ) 8 judgment of H.,'ble Supreme Court in the crrse ol Ravishankar Tandon v. sr:ate of chattisgarhl, wherein it was herd as fonows: '10. It is sett'.led law tLtrtt suspicion, hou_teuer strong tt mag be, cannot ttke the place of proof beyond. reasor.abli Lloubl. An accuseci cannot be conuicted. on the ground. ttf suslcicion, no ma-tter h,ruL s.trong it is. An accused. is presum"i to br,_ innoicent unless .p1'6ea;,7 guiltg begond. o ,.a"onibl" doub,.,, r\-,.lji \,. }

11. Sri Anrr Klrmar Dodla, learned Additionai publ.c prosecutor, submitted th rt I,.Ws.l and 4 are eye witnessr:s to the incident. There is no nr cessit5z for p.W. 1 and p.W.4 to speek false against any of the appellLrrts. other than A3 and A4, aJl other accused. are stra,gers t. PW.1 a,d pw.4. However, all _he accused were. identihed in Ctur1.. 12' The vers on of p.w. 19 is that he received inforrnation about the murder frr m L.Bhoopal Reddy, ASI, who was on pertrolling duty (not examined) a'd then, p.W. 19 went to the l{ospil.al and from there, to the rr:siclr:nce of p.W. 1 and recorded stal.ement of p.W. 1 at 2.OO a.m. I, thr: said statement of pW. 1, tire names of the appella,ts All anct A5 and witnesses p.ws.4 anc 5 vrere written. However, P.W. in her cross_examination stated that she got Ex.pl 12024 SCC Online 5C 526 :.{ttta 9 complaint prepared in her house and handed it over to police' P'W' 1 furtheradmittedthatexceptinEx'Plcomplaint'shehasnotsigned on any other complaint' As seen from Ex'Pf it is the statement recorded by P.W. 19 and not the complaint' which according to P.W. 1 was prepared' in the house' The signature on P'W'1 appears on Ex.Pl. The version of PW. 1, that a written complaint was prepared in the house, when considered in the background of tJ e case, appears to have been suppressed and Ex'Pl statement was , e:.',, prepared subsequently ald not at the time appearing in Ex'Pl'

13. Ex.P2O is the requisition given by P'W'l9/Inspector of Police. addressedtotheRMo,osmaniaGeneralHospital.Thesaidletteris dated 09.01.2015. For the sake of convenience' the said letter is extracted hereunder: TheR.M.O, O smnnia General HosPital, Hgderabad. Szr, Sub: Police-Patwdishoreef-Deadbodg of Sri Sk'saleemttddin ,)'".w"ii- ru"sthafa-Preierue the dead bodg-Request-Reg' Cr.No: 7-15 Dt: 9'1.2015 PS Pahadi Shareef With reference to the aboue cited subject, it is to submit ttat, Sri Sk. Saleemuddin alias Solim S/ o.Late Sk.Shareef age 35, Occ Business and MPTC Wadi-e-Musthafa, R/ o' Wadi-e-Musthafa He utas died at Outoi"si lnsPital., 15 .1. o i i i I t f i i I I I l 10 santhosh Naga'- I am herewith send.ing for p.M.E under t,1e) escort of pc:5116 Sri M.Kumar of P.S Pahzdi Shareef. ThtreJo.e, it is requested the Olficer mag please be preserue the Thtr.nk: rtg gou Sir, dead bodg at Mcrtlutry O.G.H for further exaiination * ii .uest/g,ttioi pt. Y,>urs fa.ithfullg Stl/ -9-1-15 ( P.. It. e n k ate' s hu_t arlu ) Inspecto," of Police Puhadi flhareef PS, Cuberabo.d. TLvoughPC 5115 Health Inspector O.G.H Sd/ -For Rl'IO e/ 1/201s 3.30 AM', C.- j9 14- The said ietter bears the time as 3.30 AM, rvhich was received on OGH by t.re cloctor. If at a,ll p.W. 19 had already recorded the statement of t.W. I at her residence at 2.OO a.m, and r.egistered the FIR at 3.15 a.m. the question of p.W. 19 writing in trx.p2O, a_round 3.30 a.m, thal the: deceased was killed by unknown porsons would not arise.

15. Apart fron lhe said discrepancies, to worst:n tht,: case of ttre prosecution, tte FtR, which was registered at 3.lli A.M and sent to Court, reachec tht: concerned Court at 11.00 A..M on 09.01.2015. There is a delzy <tr 7 yz hours in the FIR reachi.g the: court. The

1.1 said delay has to be looked into in the back ground of the prosecution claiming that P.W. 19 visited the Owaisi hospital immediately around 11.00 P.M on 08.O1.2O15. According to P'Ws'1 to 3, atl three of them shifted the dead body to the hospital. Though p.w. 19 went to the hospital at 11.0o P.M, neither ttre statement of P.W. 1, nor P.Ws.2 and 3 were recorded. P.W. 19 again went back to the house of P.W.l at 2.OO A.M and recorded the statement' If P.Ws.l to 3 were present in the hospital at 11.00 P'M, there is no reason why P.W. 19 did not record statements of PWs' 1 to 3' P'W' 19 *4.-'1}t goes to the house of P.w. 1 at 2.OO A.M on O9.01.2O15 and records her statement. According to the prosecution case, P'Ws'1 to 3 were all aware of the assailants, who committed the murder. If this was the case, P.W. 19 would have known about the details of ttre assailantsatll.0Op.mono8.ol.2ol5itself,whenhevisited Owaisi hospital.

16. The said alomalies, when viewed with the delay of complaint reaching the Court, the logical conclusion is that even by 3'30 A'M on 09.O1.2015, when F;x.P2O was addressed by P'W'19, P'W'19 or anyone else had no clue about the assailants. The names of all the I r.'.1 '. 72 appellants ln3nticned in the complaint were added subsequenfly and apparenrftr, after 3.3O A.M. p.W. 1 stated that she prepared complaint, 'weiclL is denied by p.W. 19, and .'e stated that he recorded comrlai:rt at 2.oo A.M, which would gr to show that the complaint Ex.Pt a,d the identit5r of the appeiialts were later mentioned in the complaint, which explains thr: delay in the FIR reaching the (:ourt. q':- ' 77' P.w.4 is nor- an eye witness to the incident. He stated that he came out and saur A3 and -,{5 going on motor cycle. He also found two others at the scene. p.w.5 stated that by the time he went to the scene, no ()ne was present. p.w.4 stated that he dres not know who ,4.6 is ald he has not seen 46 at the scene. \Vhen the evidence of P.Ws.7,2 an7 4 and Ex.p2O are considert:d torSether, it is apparent tha1. the r:arliest version is suppressed b5. the prosecution.

18. In view tf r_he aforesaid discussion, ber:eht of doubt is extended to the appellants.

79. Accordingy, judgment of tria_l Court in S.C.No.76 1 of 2015 dated 23.03.20 17 1>assed by the XIV Additional D.strict & sessions -:a- 13 Judge-cum-XlV Additional Metropolital Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is hereby set aside and the appellalts areacquitted.Sincetheappellantsaleonbail,theirbailbonds shall stand discharged.

20. Accordingly, both the Crirninal Appeals are allow*ed' Sd/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTTON OFFICER cr. .? One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K' - - 1f6i nis Lordship's Kind Perusal) urender . One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti ' (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) The XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at LB Naoar (with records' if anY) To. ';l 2. tnBttlilil'i irout" oni""i,'pahadi Shareef PS' Hvderabad 3 The Superinteno"nt, CJiiirrFiLon, Ch"rrrprliy, Ranga Reddy District 4. 1f LR CoPies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library'. High Court for the State of fetangana, iign Court Buildings at Hyderabad

7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT] B. One CC to Sri C Sharan Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri V Pattabhi, Advocate IOPUCI 10. Two CD CoPies o VA/gh i I I I . ,t'4 HIGH COURT DATED:18102t2025 I r:"1' coMMoN JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.,:162 & 442 of 2O1T ./ s:<' ii o1 \'.; 'r."4, "...1 o. \ \Pf, Zt Z5 r:' .1, * o 51,,., r C\+! I=,:5;-- ALLOWING BOTH THE CRLAs t /'