The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JuSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.587 OF 2Ot7 WDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) The State is aggrieved by the judgment, dated

14.O9.2016, in S.C.No.l57 of 2O1 1 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.5 and 6 for the offence under Sections 120-8 read with 3O2, l2O-B read with 307, 124-A, 724-A read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ and Section 13 (l)(a)(b), 16, 18 and 2O of Untawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 . The respondent No.2/accused No.6 was acquitted for the offence under Section l2l-A of IPC. The respondent No.3/accused No.8 was acquitted for the offence under Sections 13(1)(a)(b), 16 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant- State .

3. PWl is the de-facto complainant in the case. According to him whiie he was on Blue Colts patrolling dut5r on

18.05.2009, at about 11:00 p.m., PW1 was informed that two 2 KS,J&JAI(J Crl.A.No.587 of20l7 ,'I I constabres were iying down at Naguraba,da chowrasta. pwl went there and found two persons with bleeding injuries. One person pW2 was injured and other person Home Guard (deceased) was Iying on the floor. The persons present at the scene informed pW1 that two persons carre on a scooter and fired on pW2 and deceased and went away. Immediately, PW2 and deceased were shifted to the hospita_I, On the basis of the version given by pW2, pW1 fited a written complaint/Ex.pl. During the course of investigation, the police identified accused Nos.1 and 2 as the t*o p.."or" *ho came on scooter ald shot pW2 and deceased. Accused Nos.3 to 8 were identified as the persons who have assisted accused Nos.l and 2 in firing two constables. Accused Nos.l to 8 were charge sheeted for the alleged offence under Ipc and a_lso under Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, 1962. Accused Nos.I to 4 and accused No.7 died during pendency of trial and the case against them was abated. 4. Learned Sessions Judge found that pW2 identified only accused Nos.1 and 2 in the Test Identification parade in the Central Prison. pW2 stated that it was accused Nos. 1 and 2 who fired at him on the date of incident. pW5 is another eye witness to the incident and indentified accused Nos.l and 2 in the open court. Though four other eye witnesses were 7 3 KS.J&JAKJ Crl A.No.s87 of20l7 listed as LWs.9 to 12 in the charge sheet they lvere grven up by the prosecution. l,earned Sessions Judge further found that the seizure 5. of CDs and DVDs effected during the interrogation of accused Nos . 5, .6 and 8 did not make out the case against them under any of the offences. Further the confession made by accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot form basis to convict accused Nos.5, 6 and B.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued it'^t respondents / accused were in fact implicated on the basis of the confession of accused Nos.1 and 2' The other independent witnesses to the confession and seizure were declared hostile, however, the investigating oflicer has spoken about seizures that were at the instance of respondents / accused. \ \ 7 . Accused Nos.S, 6 and 8 were not directly or indirectly involved in causing injuries to PW2 or the deceased as such the question of invoking section 120-8 read with 302 and 307 of IPC does not arise. No evidence was adduced by prosecution to remotely suggest that responclents/ accused abetted waging war against Government of India or any such attempts made. The seized DVDs or CDs from the accused I I 4 KS,',&JAI(J Crl.A.No.587 ot20l7 were not clear and could not be heard or viewed according to the learned Sessions Judge Accordingly there is nothing incriminating ln so far as accused are concerned. No witnesses are exarnined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their confession, incriminating the accused Nos.S, 6 and 8.

8. The findings of learned Sessions Judge are based on the record. Admittedly accused Nos.S, 6 and 8 were not present at the scene when the incident had taken place,and they are implicated only on the basis of confession of accused Nos.l and 2. T|oe seized DVDs and CDs did not reveal anything to suggest that accused were involved in waging war against Government of India.

9. As discussed above, there are no grounds to interfere with the reasoning given by the Iearned Sessions Judge. lO. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. "l //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge at Khammam (with records' if any) 2. The Judge, Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge at Khammam

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies vNshw HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.587 of 2017 rA 6* Y n ) o t ) I0 A 2025 t\ TPsF -c , z .2:" * DISMISSING THE CRLA l1