The High Court · 2025

Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KT'MARJI'KANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.381 alnd'464 OF 2OL7 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2OL7 was liled by ,{1 and Criminal Appeal No.381 of 2Ol7 was hled by 42.

2.AlandA2wereconvictedfortheoffencesunderSections3O2, 380, 2O1 rlw l2O-B of IPC vide judgment in S'C'No'L4 of 2Ol5 d.ated 14.02.2017 passed by the II Additiona-l Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

3.Sinceboththeappealsarequestioningtheconvictionofthe appellants/A I and A2, the appeals are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, on 2l'06'2013' at 3:OO P.M, PWl/complainant lodged a complaint stating that his sister, Shagufta Shereen (deceased), along with her husband' Amer Mohammed (A1), and their minor daughter, have been are residing floor, Anjali Apartments' at H, No. 6-3-566 l23lC,3rd Venkataramala Colony, Anandnagar Colony, Khairtabad' for the t I I I{. t!:& !I I i i I I I I 2 past eight months. Around 1O:3O AM, his brother-in-law (A1) left for his ofhce, and approximately at 1:55 PM, P'W'1 received a phone call from 41, informing that PWl's sister had been stabbed to death andaskedPw.ltoComeimmediately.Uponreceivingthe information, PW1 t-ushed to the house and found that his brother- inJaw/Al was pr€:sent. He saw his deceased sister lying dead on the bed with stab injuries on her throat. He also noticed that empty jewellery boxes alrl other items were scattered across the r:oom'

5.P.W.lfurtherstatedthatsomeunknownpersonshadlikely stabbed the decezrsed with knives and fled after stealing a gold necklace set (bracelet and earrings) weighing about 2 tolas' a gold chain weighing abrlut 1 tola, and cash amounting to <2 '7O,OOO I - '

6. Upon receiving the complaint from PW1, PW2l , Detective Inspector of Police, Panj agutta PS, registered a case in Cr' No' 442/2013 under flections 3O2 and 38O of the IPC and commenced the investigation T.Duringthec.curseofinvestigation,PW2l,alongwitlrthestafi visited the crime r;cene and, in the presence of mediators P.ws. I 1 ) 3 aIldl2,hadthescenephotographedwitlrtheassistanceofP.W.14. P.W.21 seized a blood-stained bed sheet and pillow cover' After conducting an inquest in the presence of PW13 and LW16' the deceased's body was sent to the mortuary at Gandhi Hospital' Secunderabad, where it was preserved' On 22'06'2013' P'W'IS conducted an autopsy on the deceased's body in the presence of PW13, LWs 16 and, 17. At the mortuary' PW21 collected the deceased,s blood-stained clothes. PW15 photographed the deceased's body during the autopsy'

8. P.W.21 then secured the presence of PWs 1to 3 (the deceased'sbrother,father,and'mother),circumstantialwitnesses LWs 4, 6, 8, and PWs 4 to 10 and 19, as well as photographers PWs 14 and 15. Their statements were recorded in detail'

9. P.W. 1 spoke about frequent petty quarrels between his brother-in-1aw/A1, and the deceased' over trivial family matters and expressed suspicion about A1's involvement in the deceased's death. PWs 2 and 3 corroborated PW1's statement' P'W'6' a relative of the deceased, stated that he had seen Sudhamsh Netha/A2' visiting the deceased's house' He further mentioned that A2 was _-_ - a. !---- j 4 carrying a bag while going upstairs and was later seen leaving hurriedly with the same bag.

10.P.W.77,Chir:fMedicalOfficer,examinedA.2andnotednail injuries allegedly sustained during a struggle with the deceased. PW. 17 issued a mr:dical certihcate.

11. P.W. 18, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, documented the injuries and opined that the estimated time of death was between 12 to 24 hours before the post-mortem examinalion (PME). The cause of death was attributed to multiple stab injuries to the neck, combined with organophosphate, al insecticicle poison' L.W.27, Assistant Director of APFSL, examined the mater:ia,l objects seized from the ,lrime scene and the deceased's body' The FSL report d,afed 17.10.2013 stated that item nos. 1 to 9 werr: examined and human blooi. was detected on them' The blood group on item nos.l,2,and,4togwasdeterminedtobe'AB,'whiletheblood grouponitemno.3couldnotbeidentified.PW2lalsocollected Al's mobile phone call data. On 23.06'2013, at 4:30 P'M' A'1 was apprehended at his residence in west Marredpally, Secunderabad' In the presence cf mediators PW2O and Lw27, A1',s confessional ) 5 statement was recorded, wherein he a-llegedly admitted to plalning the deceased's murder by hiring a killer. Based on A1's confession, PW21 seDed the following:

1. One black Samsung Duos mobile phone (Dual SIM) with IMEI Nos. 353576058322290 and 353577058322298 and SIM No. 9966853700.

2. One black Samsung Galaxy Note GTN 70OO mobile phone with SIM No. 9052285551 and IMEI No. 382935054826046.

3. One gold chain weighing 8.860 grams. 4. One gold ring weighing 1.630 grams. 5. One pair of gold ear studs weightng4.720 grarns. 6. One gold black beads chain weighing 9.370 grams. t2. Pursuant to A1's confession, PW2 1 apprehended ,{2 on

23.06.2013 and, in the presence of PW2O and LW21, recorded A2's confessional statement

13. The investigation established that A1 married the deceased in 2OO8, and deceased gave birth to a daughter. There were frequent petty quarrels between ,\1 and the deceased over family matters. Unable to pacifu his wife, A1 allegedly devised a plan to eliminate her by hiring a killer. As per A1's plan, on 3.6.2013, he purchased a Vodafone SIM card bearing No. 9642193910 for Rs. 20O in the name of Jamal, using his driving license as ID proof. Subsequently, A1 contacted A2, explained his plan, ald .A2 allegedly agreed to kill 6 the deceased ir-'. exchange for Rs. 3,OO,OOO/-, to which A1 consented. In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, A1 procured Restyl 0.25 and Mypspaz 10 tablets from PW10's medica-l shop, altegedly intendirg to induce the deceased into deep sleep. Further, A1 allegedly obtained poison to ensure that the deceased would be unable to resist A2's attack. As per their plan, A1 a'llegedly administered Restyl 0.25, Mypspaz lO tablets, and poison to the deceased. once the deceased lost consciousness, A1 informed A2 about the same through his Vodafone SIM No' 9642193910 and allegedly instructed A2 to proceed with the killing t4. On21.6.2013, A,2 entered the house and allegedly stabbed the deceased to death with a knife before taking awav her gold ornaments to mislead the police. After allegedly committing the murder, A2 informed A1 through Vodafone SIM No' 96421939LO' Following Al's instructions, A2 destroyed the SIM card to avoid being traced by the police. A2 subsequently handed over the deceased's gold crnaments to 41, which were later seized from Al's possession. Base:d on the investigation, A1 and -A2 were charge- sheeted for offences under Sections 3O2, 2Ol, 380, and 12O(B) of 1 IPC.

15. tearned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants mainly on the basis of circumstantial evidence. According to the learned Sessions Jud,ge, P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.6 and P'W'S witnesses and the recoveries which were effected from A1 and A2 make out a case against both the aPPellants.

76. The frve golden principles constituting panchsheel to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence were summed up in sharad Birdhichand sarda v. State of Maharashtra r, which reads as follows: "153. A close analgs[s of this decision utould stnut that the follotuing rnnditions must be fulfilted beJore a cose against an occused con be said to be fully establkted: (1) the circumstances from uhich the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn slnuld be fully establisfed. It mag be noted here that this Court indicated that tle ciranmstonces concerned "mtst or slauld" and not "maA be" established' There is not onlA a grommatical but a tegal distinction betlueen "mag be proued" and omust be or shttuld. be proued." as was held bA this Court in Shiuaji Sahabroo Bobode u. State of Mahoroshtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)1033 : 1973 Crl Ll 17831 tthere the obseruations were mode: ISCC paro 19' p' 8O7: SCC Pfl p. 1oa7l '(19841 4 scc i16 8 'a,1' "Certainly, it: is a pimary pinciple that the accused must be and not merelA maA be ryiltg before a court can conuict and the mentol distance betlueen'mag be' and 'must be'is long and diutdes uague conjectures from sure conclusion:;. ' (2) the facts sc established should be consistent onlA uith the hgpothesis of the guilt of the x:ansed, tnt is to saA, theA should not be explahable on ang other hgpothesi:; e-xcept thot the acansed is guiltg, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusiue nahre and tenden cy, (4) theg shoulcl <,-xclude euery possible hgpotlrcsis except the one to be proued, (5) there must b<,- a chain of euidence so utmplete as not to leaue anq reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent uith the innocence of the accused and must shotr that in all tuman probability the act must haue been done bg tlne acatsed."

17. According 1.o the prosecution, there were frequent quarrels in between A1 and the deceased over family issues. Unabb to bear the frequent fights, r\1 planned to eliminate his wife/deceased by hiring killer/A2. The e'"idence of quarrel, in between the deceased and .A1, is stated by P.W. i /brother of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 parents of the deceased. A<:cording to P.Ws.2 and 3, at the time ol marriage, 27 tulas of gold, Rs.1.OO lakh cash was given, apart from furniture. When the deceased was pregnant, she was neglected by her husband/A1, as such, deceased was taken to the house of P.Ws.2 arld 3. The harassment continued even after the birth ,rf the child. In the year,2071, A.1 and the deceased moved to Balgalore. The '7. 9 deceased used to inform P.W.2 about frequent frghts with A1. In the year 2OL2, A1 and deceased shifted back to Hyderabad and stayed at West Marredpally. Even there also, harassment contimred' According to P.Ws.2 and 3, on 18.06.20 13, the deceased called P.W.2 stating that A1 had beaten her and the deceased requested PW.2 to take her. P.W.2 then assured the deceased that they were planning to visit Hyderabad on 21.06-2013 and sort out issues'

18. During the course of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, they admitted that the statements regarding strained relation in between the deceased and A.1, were an improvement from the complaint- Ex.P1 and from their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. The omissions regarding the harassment was proved during cross examination of the Investigating offrcer. The Investigating ofhcer during his evidence deposed that he did not collect any documentary evidence to support the claim of P.ws.l to 3 that gold, household articles and cash were given at the time of marriage ' lg. The incident happened on 2l-06'2013' Around 3'00 p'm, p.w. 1/brother of the deceased lodged complaint with the police. In the complaint, he stated that some unknown persons stabbed his 10 sister with knife and blade after committing theft of gold ornaments. p.w.2l/investigating ofhcer having received complaint. went to the scene where A1 ,;ras present. In the inquest that was held at 4'OO p.m on the same day, it is mentioned that unknown persons had committed murder. Though P.ws.l and 2 stated before the court that they suspected A1 of being responsible for the rrLurder of the deceased, however, the same was not stated till conc.tusion of the inquest proceedings, at 7:OOPm.

20. The police did not take the help of any fingerprint expert or collect any clues from the scene. In Ex.P6, scene of offence panchanama, it is stated that the scientifrc officer', hngerprint experts, Dog squad and other police officials visited the scene of offence, however, P.W.21 did not cite any of these: officials as witnesses.

21. According to the prosecution case, A1 contacted A2 on 03.06.2Oi3 a-fter he purchased Vodafone SIM card bearing No.9642 193910 and, contacted A2 on 8008976854. According to the prosecution, after the incident, Aland ,{2 made phone calls, 71, contacted one another through said phone numbers and after the murder of tJle deceased, SIM cards were destroyed.

22. In the case of Chaadrabhan SudamSanaP v. State of Maharashtra2, t]ne Hon'ble Three Judge bench of the Supreme Court held that, an electronic evidence in the form of CDR without any certihcation under Section 65-8 of the Evidence Act has to be eschewed from consideration. In the present case, admittedly, Section 65-8 certifrcation was not hled, to rely on the call data record hled by the prosecution. The link to show that A,1 and .A2 contacted one another, is the call detail records, which cannot be made basis to conclude that there was communication between ,{1 and A2.

23. One more circumstance of the prosecution case is that ,{1 purchased Restyl 0.25 and Myospaz, each 10 tablets from P.W. 1O's medical shop. The said tablets were administered to the deceased by A1 and also insecticide poison. Thereafter, he ca-lled up A2, who had key to the flat. A.2 then went to the flat around 11.0O a'm and committed murder of the deceased. P.W.6 was waiting in the cellar '72025 Lawsuit (SC) 117 12 of the building complex when A2 went upstairs and came down on the date of the incident.

24. The cause of death, according to the postmortem examination doctor/P.W. 18 are the multiple stab injuries to the neck associated with organo phosphate insecticide poison' P'W'18 deposed in his cross-examination that, organo phosphate poisoning cases have classical smel1 which can be detected at the time of postmoftem. However, in the postmortem report, it is mentioned that t'lrere was no specihc smell present. The prosecution has not come up with any evidence to show from where the insecticide poison was purchased by A1.

25. P.W.1O was examined by the prosecution to sterte about A1 purchasing Restvl tablets from his shop. P.w. 10 stated that there will be a duplicate copy of prescription which has to be retained with the shop. However, no such copy of prescription was seized from the shop. Ex.PS was hled by the prosecution and marked through P.W.1O. According to P.W. 10, he sold tablets on

11.06.2013 to Amar Mohd.Jamal, however, he did not identi$r the person purchasing the tablets. 13

26. The prosecution relied on t-he evidence of P'W'5 to show that ..{2 was present at the scene on the date of the incident, i'e', 21.06.2013. According to P.W.6, he went to the house on 2L.O6.2O13 at about 11.00 a.m and knocked the door of the deceased. However, there was no response- He came down and started waiting for the deceased expecting that she would return. Meanwhile, he saw A2 gorng upstairs and coming down, 15 to 20 minutes thereafter. Then, P.W.6 again went upstairs and on seeing that there was no response, he went away. PW.6, further stated that he attended the cremation of the deceased on 23'06 '2013 or

24.06.2013. On television, he saw A1 and A2 rn a press meet who were accused in the murder case. P.w.6 then identihed ,{2 as the person who went upstairs on the day when he was waiting near the apartment. Accordingly, he went to the- police on 29'06'2013 and gave statement that ,{2 was the person who went upstairs and returned while he was waiting in the apartment parking area' In the cross-examination, P.w.6 stated that he is a resident of Agapura, which is at a distance of 11 km. from Al',s flat. He does not know the telephone numbers of the deceased, A1, or P'W'2' PW'6 further stated that he was waiting in the parking area' There was a 74 watchman room. He did not try to deliver parcel to the neighbors or the watchman. P.W.6 further stated that he does not remember on which TV channel he saw A1 and A2. The police, according to P.W.6, had shown him photograph of ,A.2 before he was asked to identify A2. No test identifrcation parade was conducted .

27. P.W.6 was examined on 29.06.2013. Though he s1_ated that he attended cremation of the deceased on 23.06.2013 or 24.06.2013, he did not give cletails of any person going up arrd coming down while he was '"1'aiting in the parking a-rea, near the watchman,s room. P.W.4 is the wife of the watchmal of the said building. According to her, she was on the ground floor. Around 11.00 a.m, and at about 12.:lO, the daughter of the deceased retr_rrned home. Normally, the deceased used to come down and pick up her daughter. However, she did not come down, and as such, p.W.4 took the daughter to the flat. Since there was no response near the flat, she called A1. A1 informed P.W.4 thathe would be backin 2O minutes. A,1 returned and found the deceased dead. Immediately, three Doctors were called, who were in the apartment, who came to the scene and checked the deceased and found her dead. In the 15 cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that there was a watchmal quarter in the parking a-rea and any visitor to the apartment would necessarily pass through the quarter of the watchman and if any stranger comes, they will question them regarding the purpose of visit. P.W.4 curiously did not state about either the presence of P.W.6 in the parking area where she was waiting near watchman room, or about the visit of 42. P.W.6 stated that he did not have t]le number of the deceased or A1 or PW.2. His presence gives rise to any amount of doubt since he asserts that he was at the scene near the apartment without making any call and states that he waited in the parking area besides watchman room. It is an apartment complex and normally, there would be several persons going up and down through lift or through stairs. It is not known as to how P.W.6 was in a position to identiff A2 as the person who went upstairs and came down. There are several flats in the apartment complex. The evidence of P.W.6, in the background of the evidence of PW.4 is suspicious and appears to have been planted. 2a. The prosecution relied on the injuries received by A2 to suggest that he attacked the deceased and in the process, received -tb simple injuries on his body. P.W. 17 is the Doctor, u,ho examined A2 on 24.06.2013 at 12.15 p.m. Wound certificate-Ex.P2O was also issued by P.W. 17. The cause of death of the deceased was organo phosphate poison and stab injuries. According to prosecution case, Restyl tablets rvere also administered by A1. If at all insecticide poison and Resty' tablets were administered, it is not known as to why no signs of such insecticide were found during postmortem examination. If a person is administered both sleeping tablets and a-lso insecticide poison either such person would be unconscious or would take steps to vomit poison. At the scene, no such evidence of poison was present during panchanama. The proseculion failed to explain as to how A,2 received injuries in the background of the deceased being administered with sleeping pills and insecticide poison. At the time of observation of dead body, the trands of the deceased were tied, as seen in Ex.P2I /postmortem examination report. The said factor raises doubt regarding prosecution,s claim that A2 was injured by the deceased when he attacked her. Admittedly, nothing was collected from the nails of the deceased to know whether anl,.thing was embedded in between the finger nails. 17

29. The weapon seized ftorn A2 is a vegetable cutter knife with sharpness on one side. P.W. 18 deposed that stab injuries sustained by the deceased are of spindle shape and w'ith clean cut margins. The postmortem examination Doctor was not shown the knife Mo9 which was seized from A2 to support the version of the prosecution that the injuries were caused by Mo9. P.w. 18 admitted that both the hands of the deceased were tied with a pink and blue chunni. P.W. 18 admitted that the spindle shaped injuries with clean cut margins are caused by a double edged weapon' The said admission of the Doctor regarding the injuries that would be possible with a double edged weapon and absence of any smell of insecticide, creates suspicion of the correctness of the claim of the prosecution that the deceased was administered insecticide poison and also stabbed with MO9 which has a sharp edge on only one side.

30.Theprosecutionfurtherreliesontherecoveriesthatwere effected at the instance of A1 and A2. Al was apprehended on 23.06.2013. P.W.2O, independent person was asked to act as a witness to the confession and seizure of A1' A1 was in the house I 18 ( and in the presence of P.W.20 and other police personnel, he confessed to the crime and produced gold ornaments r,., hich are gold chain, gold black bead chain, two ear studs, one gold ring, one gold bracelet, which are MOs.2 to 6, respectively. A,1 led the police to ttre house of A2 at trast Marredpally. A2 was present in the house when A1 and others u'ent there. A'2 was questioned and his confession was a-lso recorded. MO9- knife was seized along with cash of Rs.3.OO lakh, blood stained clothes, phone, and key, which according to the prosecution is the key to the flat of A 1 .

31. P.W.20, independent witness to the confession and seizure, in his cross-examination admitted that he is having acquaintarce with the family of P.Ws.l to 3 as they used to live in the same colony. P.W.2O further admitted that he went to the Court two or three times and on atl the occasions, he had interacted with p.Ws.1 and 2

32. The gold ornaments, MOs.2 to 6 which were seized at the instalce of A1, were neither subjected to test identification parade in accorda,ce with Rule 34 of criminal Rules of practice, nor shown to P.Ws.1 to 3 to identify that the jewelry was that of the deceased- 19

33. According to the case of the prosecution, A1 offered Rs'3'00 lakhs to A2 to kill his wife. According to the plan, A1 would administer poison and sleeping tablets, al1d thereaft er, A2 would enter into the flat and commit murder of the deceased' The key- MO8 was seized at the instance of A2. At the time of seizure, there were two keys with A2 and in the Court only one key was marked bearing No.1142 163. However, the number of the key was not mentioned in Ex.P27, which is the seDure panchanama' Though P.W.7 was examined, who is the owner of the flat, MO8 was not shown to him. The police ought to have taken the key to the flat and opened the lock of the flat in the presence of independent witnesses. In the absence of alry such exercise undertaken, and the owner, P.W.7 not identifying that MO8 was the key of A1's flat, it cannot be assumed that the key MO8 is'the key to the flat of A1' I t Another circumstance is the seizure of cash of Rs.2,7O,2OO/- from A2. lt is the case of prosecution that A1 withdrew cash of Rs' 3 lakhs. It cannot be assumed that the cash found in the house of ,{2 I I was handed over by Al to A2, in tl.e absence of the prosecution failing to prove communication in between A1 and 42' l 20

34. The prosecution IS bound to prove each and every crrcumstance beryond reasonabre doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, every circumstalce gives rise to doubt, as alreacly discussed above. Such doubtful circumstances cannot form a complete chain, which would unerringly point towards guiit of the appellants. In view of the discrepancies in the case of the prosecution, beneht of doubt is extended to the appellants.

35. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No. 14 of 2015, dated I4.O2.2OI7 is set aside, and the appellants a_re acquitted.

36. Since the appellant/A1 is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Since 42 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 37. Acqgtlingly, both the appeals are allowed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHASI(ER JOINT REGISTRAR i V One Fair C.gpy !9 the Hon,ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) One Fair Copy_to the Hon,ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) SECTION OFFICER To, 1 J noon,onrl l\.4etropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (with records, if ]f;" . The Station House Officer, panjagutta pS, Hyderabad District . The Superintendent, Centrat Lait, -Cnenapaf fv, n"rs]'n.ody District lBv ecial Messenoer I cc^'b 11 LR Copies Advocates Associati The Under Secreta ry, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secreta ry Telangana, igh Court H Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, Hyderabad tourl One CC to Sri Y Ratna prabha, Advocate [oPUC] Two CD Copies High Court for the State of Telangana, Hish court ror the state or \ uildings at il.ti?ii?; B 4 ,5

7. B.

9. VA l J I 'l HIGH COURT DATED:1810212025 z COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.381 & 464 of 2017 ,/.. /. : ,,.1 (: 2 4 riB 2025 t I (J a- /b ALLOWING BOTH THE CRLAs I L I