Page 1 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT
HYDERABAD.
Tuesday, the 07th day of October, 2025
Present : C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI
IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
SESSIONS CASE No.265 of 2021
(PRC No.209 of 2020)
Committed bySmt. Kshama Deshpande, FAC VI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad.
Crime Number and Police StationCrime No.339 of 2018 of P.S.Langer House, Hyderabad.
Name and description of the accused 1. Mohammad Shabbir @ Shabbir, S/o.Late No.1 & 2Mohammad Mahmood, Aged 31 years, Occ:Car Driver, R/o.H.No.9-1-1/B/35, Defence Colony, Near Ghousia Masid, Langer House, Hyderabad.
2. Mohammad Abdul Hameed, S/o.Late Mohammad Mahmood, Aged about 27 years, R/o.Defence Colony, Near Ghousia Masid, Langer House, Hyderabad.
Name and description of the The State represented by the Inspector of complainantPolice, Langer House, Hyderabad.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. K.Srivani, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Defence conducted bySri Mohd Muzaferullah Khan, advocate for A1 and Sri Mohd. Jani, advocate for A2.
Offences chargedUnder Sections 364 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC
Page 2 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
Plea of the accusedNot guilty
Finding of the CourtNot guilty
RESULT
In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.364 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. Mos.1 to 8 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked Pulsar Bike bearing No.A-09BQ 4990 and auto bearing No.TS 11UB 7265 shall be returned to their registered owners after the expiry of appeal time.
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Inspector of Police, P.S.Langer House, Hyderabad Police
Station, Hyderabad has laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Crime
No.339/2018, U/Sec.302 and 364 r/w.34 of IPC, alleging that A1 and A2 are liable to be punished for the said offences.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
a) On 03-12-2018 at 17.40 hours, PW.15 received a telephone message from an unknown person stating that a murder took place at Defence
Colony and requested to take necessary action. Basing on the message,
PW.15 along with his staff rushed to the place of incident, where PW.1
Page 3 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 was present and handed over the English written Complaint to PW.17.
PW.17 endorsed over the complaint to register the case U/Sec.364, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and sent it to the police station through PC.No.9820 of
Langer House P.S. Immediately the dead body was shifted to OGH
Mortuary through PC.No.2637. On the Gist of the complaint stating that on 03-12-2018 at about 03.45 p.m, while PW.1 was at Satyam Reddy
Petrol Pump, Langer House, he received one phone call from his mother (PW.8) that his brother was attacked by A1 and his brother A2 at his residence and when PW.1 reached the spot and found his brother died with blood injuries infront of Shabbir’s house and later came to know through PW.13 that his brother Imran while taking tea in front of Netaji
Nagar Electric Sub Station, Langer House, A1 came there along with his brother-A2 in a auto and forcibly took away his brother-Imran in the auto to Shabbir’s residence and killed him with sickle with the help of A2 and both sped away from the spot and he suspected close intimacy of the deceased with the wife of A1 and committed the kidnap and murder of the deceased and requested to take necessary action. As per the contents,
LW.25-S.Balasway, SI of Police registered a case in Crime No.339/2018,
U/Sec. 364, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and issued FIR and handed over the CD file to PW.17. PW.17 summoned Clues Team and examined PW.1 and recorded his statement, secured the presence of PW.10 and
PW.11. LW.17-Penta Indrani with the assistance of LW.20-Jadi
Page 4 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
Sampath came to the spot. PW.17 conducted the Scene of Observation
Cum Seizure Panchanama, drafted Rough Sketch, took photographs, collected material objects with the help of Clues Team Staff, collected footages of CCTV Camera which was installed in the house of PW.16, seized DVR in the presence of the same panch witnesses, examined PW.2 to PW.6, PW.8, PW.9, PW.12, PW.13 and PW.16 and recorded their statements. On 04-12-2018, PW.17 summoned PW.10 and PW.11 and visited the OGH Mortuary and conducted the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased and seized blood stained clothes under the cover of seizure report. PW.14 conducted the Post Mortem Examination vide
No.3459 of 2018 and opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to Chop Wound of left side of chest and after PME, the dead body was handed over to the relatives. On 06-12-2018, at 09.30 hours, PW.15 received credible information about A1 at Mir Mobin Saheb Pahadi
Dargah, Rajendra Nagar and rushed there along with staff i.e., LW.22-
GB.Dinesh Reddy, LW.23-Anjaneyulu PC, LW.24-Naresh Jadhav PC and apprehended A1 and sent letter to MDO for deputing responsible officers to act as panchas. PW.12 and LW.13-K.Om Prakash came to the police station and PW.17 recorded the confession statement of A1 in their presence and seized one blood stained T Shirt, Pant of A1 and seized one
Pulsar Bike Bearing No. AP 09 BQ 4990 from the possession of A1 and also recovered blood stained coconut cutter ( Sickle) from the
Page 5 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 bushes at Laxmi Nagar Road, Attapur at the instance of A1 under the cover of the panchanama in the presence of the panchas, arrested A1 and sent him for judicial custody on 04-12-2018. On 12-12-2018, basing on credible information, PW.15 arrested A2 at Defence Colony, Langer
House and produced before PW.17. PW.17 secured the presence of
PW.10 and PW.11 and recorded the confession statement of A2 and seized auto Bearing NO. TS 11 UB 7265 from the possession of A2 and effected his arrest and sent him for judicial custody on 12-12-2018. The material objects and blood stained clothes of deceased were sent to FSL for report and LW.17-Penta Indrani examined the items and furnished the opinion that the Item No.1 to 12 are examined, blood was detected on
Item No.1, 2, 4 and 6 to 12, origin of blood stain on Item No.1, 2, 4, 6 to 11 is of human, blood group of Blood Stains of Item No.9, 10 and 11 is of “ B” Blood group, origin of Blood Stains on Item No.12 could not be determined and blood group of blood strains on Item No.1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 could not be determined and blood was not detected on Item No.3 and 5 which were received as control for Item No.1 and 4 respectively. LW.19-
Khsama Deshpande, VIII ACMM, Nampally recorded the statements of
PW.1 to PW.4 U/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,
PW.17 filed charge sheet alleging that A1 and A2 are liable to be punished for the offences U/Sec.302, 364 r/w.34 of IPC.
Page 6 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
3.Basing on the material on record, the learned committal court had taken the case on file and had taken cognizance against A1 and A2, U/Sec.364, 302 r/w.34 of IPC and registered the case against A1 and A2 in PRC.No.209 of 2020. Later on, on the appearance of A1 and A2, the committal court furnished the copies of documents and charge sheet to A1 and A2 in strict compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offence under section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the
Sessions Division, U/Sec.209 of Cr.P.C.
4.Basing on the material on record, the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,
Nampally, Hyderabad was pleased to take the case on file U/Sec.364, 302 r/w.34 of IPC against the A1 and A2 and registered the case as in SC.No.265 of 2021 and made over to this court for trial and disposal.
5.On the receipt of the case record, On the appearance of A1 and A2 and on hearing of learned Addl Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for A1 and
A2, they were examined and charge framed against A1 and A2, U/Sec.228 of
Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/Sec.364 and 302 r/w.34 of IPC, read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The A1 and A2 were defended by their counsel.
Page 7 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
6.Out of 26 witnesses cited, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.18 and got marked EX.P1 to EX.P15 and MO.1 to MO.8 were marked. The
Learned Addl PP has given up LW.13-K.Om Prakash, LW.17-Penta Indrani,
LW.18-G.Swarna Rani, LW.19-Kshama Deshpande, LW.20-Jadi Sampath,
LW.22-GV.Dinesh Reddy, LW.23-Anjaneyulu, LW.24-Naresh Jadhav and
LW.25-S.Balasway, SI of Police. No witnesses were examined from the side of accused and no Exhibits were marked.
7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 werer examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the evidence and further stated that they had no defence evidence.
8.Heard both sides arguments.
9.Now the point for determination is that
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec.364 and 302, r/w.34of IPC?.
POINT
10.The conspectus of the case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 are
Page 8 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 brothers and A1 is the Car Driver residing at Defence Colony near Ghousia
Masjid, Langer House in a rented house along with his wife and daughter and
A2 is an auto driver living separately along with his family and that A1 was having criminal back ground and involved in Crime No.147/2010, U/Sec. 354, 153A r/w.34 of IPC pending trial in the VI ACMM Court, Hyderabad and the deceased-Syed Imran was the close friend of A1 and he used to visit his house frequently and developed intimacy with the wife of A1 which converted into illegal contact and that PW.6 is the friend of A1 who noticed about illegal activities of deceased with the wife of A1 and informed the same to A1 over phone and A1 believed the version of PW.6 and hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and informed his plan to A2 and that on 29-11-2018, A1 went to
Zumerath Bazar and purchased a coconut cutter ( Sickle) for Rs.400/- from an unknown person and brought and kept in his house and that on 03-12-2018, at about 15.40 hours, A1 received information through A2 about the availability of deceased at Tea Stall in Netaji Nagar near Electric Substation in Langer
House and came on his Black Pulsar Bike Bearing NO. AP 09 BQ 4990 and A2 on his auto bearing NO. TS 11 UB 7265 came there and both of them forcibly took the deceased in the auto and at that time PW.4 and PW.13 were present and raised objection, but A1, A2 did not listen to them and kidnapped the deceased and forcibly took him to the 3rd floor of the pent house of A1 at
Defence Colony and started questioning him about his illegal contact with the wife of A1, but the deceased did not give the satisfactory reply and then A1
Page 9 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 took the coconut cutter and attacked the deceased with an intention to eliminate him, but the deceased resisted himself with his hands and A1 beat him with coconut cutter on his hands and the deceased received injuries over both hands, face, back side of shoulder and other parts of the body and was lying on the floor and then A1 dragged him and both A1 and A2 reached on the street and the deceased fell down in front of the gate and on that once again A1 attacked on the back of the deceased and the deceased resisted again and then A1 attacked on the collar bone on the left side of chest of the deceased and due to which the deceased collapsed and blood was oozing from his body and then A2 assisted A1 in commission of murder of deceased and A1 threatened PW.3, who was residing in the 2nd floor and took the keys of his bike and sped away by keeping the sickle near his foot and thrown at Laxmi Nagar Road, Attapur, opposite to Scrap Shop and on the same day after some time, A1 saw PW.3 at
Attapur Bridge and then returned his bike to him and threatened him not to disclose the act and collected his Pulsar Bike from Cycle repair shop at Netaji
Nagar and went to his in laws house at Mir Momin Saheb Pahadi Dargah,
Rajendra Nagar for taking shelter.
11.PW1, who is the defacto complainant and said to be the brother of the deceased, deposed that he is the resident of MM Pahadi, Chinthalment, Attapur,
Hyderabad since 2019 and that at the time of the incident he used to stay at
Defence Colony, he is a private employee and deceased Syed Imran was his
Page 10 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 younger brother and PW3 lives in the second floor of the residence of A1 and he knows PW2, who is the neighbour of the accused and he knows PW4, who is the friend of his deceased brother and he knows PW13, who is the brother in law of the deceased and PW8 is his mother and he knows A1 and A2 in the case and they are his childhood friends and they also reside in his locality in defence colony.
12.The further evidence of PW1 revealed that on 3.12.2018 at about 3.45
P.M. while he was present at Satyam Reddy Petrol pump at Langer House and was filing petrol, at that time he received a phone call from PW8 and informed him over phone that A1 and A2 attacked his brother at the residence of A1 and so immediately he went to the house of A1 bearing No.9-1-1/B/35, Defene colony, Langer House and there he noticed that his brother was lying dead and he was in a pool of blood and he had received bleeding injuries over his chest, face and other parts of the body and then he noticed PW3 and he informed him that A1 attacked on his brother with coconut cutting knife at the pent house of
A1 and he brought his brother to the ground and he also noticed PW2 was present and he also stated to him that A1 attacked his brother before him with a coconut cutting knife and that PW13 came to the spot and stated to him that
PW4 and deceased and himself were consuming tea at Netaji Nagar Electric
Sub station, Langer House and at that time A1 and A2 came to the spot and one
Mohd Hameed was driving auto and A1 took his deceased brother in an auto forcibly and the PW13 came to the rescue and and A1 pushed him aside and
Page 11 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 took his deceased brother Imran to his house and attacked on him and committed murder on him and that he went to the Langer House police station and filed Ex.P1 report with the police.
13.PW1 admitted in his cross examination that whatever the narration given in his chief examination was the information received by the other persons and he was not the eye witness to any of the incident and he did not mention either in his complaint or in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement the phone number from which he received phone call from PW8 and also his mobile number on which he received phone call and admitted that PW8 was not an eye witness to the alleged incident and that in Ex.P1 report he had not mentioned the door number where the body of his deceased brother Imran was lying and further revealed that after visiting he had not made any efforts either to see or touch the dead body of the deceased to find out about the injuries and that within 10 minutes, the police arrived there and he never visited the house of A1 and also admitted that the door No.9-1-1/B/35 belongs to a building consisting of four to five flats and that different families were staying in the above flats and also deposed that at 6.00 PM he lodged Ex.P1 report with the police Langer House and the
Inspector of police of PS Langer house by name Srinivas scribed Ex.P1 report and further deposed that he himself scribed Ex.P1 report and the Circle
Inspector of police by name Srinivas examined him and recoded his statement at the spot and the Inspector of police recorded what ever he mentioned in
Page 12 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
Ex.P1 report and he knows A2 from the childhood and he resides half kilometer away from the house of A2.
14.According to PW1 he is not the eye witness to the alleged incident and he was informed by PW8, who is his mother, that his brother Imran was attacked by A1 and A2 at the residence of A1 in 9-1-1/B/35, Defence colony,
Langer house and he noticed that his brother was lying dead in a pool of blood and received bleeding injuries over his chest, face and other parts of body. PW1 never deposed the presence of A1 and A2 at the house bearing No.9-1-1/B/35.
The evidence of PW1 revealed about the presence of PW3 who said to have informed about the attack of A1 on the deceased with coconut cutting knife at the pent house of A1 and he brought the deceased to the ground.
15.It is pertinent to note that the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW13 is crucial about of alleged attack of the deceased by A1 and alleged involvement of A2 in the offence. PW3 is said to be the neighbour of accused and he is an independent witness and no way related to the PW1. According to PW3 he is the resident of Attapur, Hyderabad and he is a driver by profession and he does not know PW1, PW2 and PW4 and he does not know the accused in the case and that about 5 or 6 years back he returned home from the office and he saw some locality people and gathered in front of his house and on that police
Page 13 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 asked him to give his details and as such he gave his particulars to the police and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police neither examined nor recorded his statement.
16.PW3, who is said to be the eye witness and who was present and said to have informed PW1 that A1 attacked the deceased with a coconut cutting knife at the house of A1, did not depose anything about his presence at the alleged scene of offence and nothing deposed by PW3 that he saw the A1 attacked the deceased with coconut cutting knife. PW3 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that police examined and recorded his statement and he stated before the police as in EX.P3. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of
PW3 against the accused. The evidence of PW3 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
17.The evidence of PW2, who is said to be the eye witness and was present and said to have stated to Pw1 that the A1 attacked the deceased with a coconut cutting knife, deposed that he is the resident of Langer House, Hyderabad and he is a student and he knows PW1 and he does not know PW3 and PW4, Pw13 and he does not know the accused in this case and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police neither examined nor recorded his statement.
Page 14 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
18.PW2, who is said to be the neighbour of accused and independent witness and no way related to the PW1, did not depose anything about his presence at the alleged scene of offence and nothing deposed by PW2 that he saw the A1 attacked the deceased with coconut cutting knife.
19.PW2 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that police examined and recorded his statement and he stated before the police as in Ex.P5. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of PW2 against the accused. The evidence of PW2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
20.PW13, who is said to be the witness came to the alleged scene of offence and stated to PW1 that PW4, himself and the deceased were consuming tea at
Netaji Nagar Electric Sub Station, Langerhouse and A1 and A3 came to the spot and A2 was driving the auto and A1 took the deceased forcibly and he came to the rescue and A1 pushed him aside and took the deceased to the house of A1 and committed murder on him, deposed that he is the resident of
Langerhouse, Hyderabad and he is a driver and the deceased was his brother in law and he does not know A1 and A2 in the case and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police neither examined nor recorded his statement.
Page 15 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
21.PW13 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that he stated before the police that on 3.12.2018 at about 15.45 hours while he was talking to the deceased at Electric Substation,
Langerhouse, A1 and A2 came to the spot and took deceased forcibly and also
A1 and A2 killed the deceased in this house as in Ex.P12. PW13, who is no other than the brother in law of the deceased, did not depose anything about his presence with the deceased and PW4 at Netaji Nagar Electric Substation,
Langerhouse and about the alleged coming of A1 and A2 and forcibly taking away the deceased to their house and committing murder. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of PW13 against the accused. The evidence of PW13 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
22.PW4, who is said to be the eye witness to the alleged incident and who was said to be present along with PW13 and the deceased at Netaji Nagar
Electric Sub station, Langerhouse and A1 and A2 came to the spot and A2 was driving the auto and A1 took the deceased forcibly, deposed that he is the resident of Upperpally, RR District and he is doing denting work and he does not know PW1 to PW3 and PW13 and he does not know the accused in this case and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police neither examined nor recorded the statement. PW4 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that police examined and recorded his statement and he stated before the police as in
Page 16 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
Ex.P4. PW4, who is the independent witness and noway related to PW1, did not depose about the presence with the deceased and PW13 at Netaji Nagar
Electric Sub Station, Langerhouse and about the alleged coming of A1 and A2 and forcibly taking away the deceased to their house and committing murder.
The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of
PW4 against the accused. The evidence of PW4 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
23.Pws.2, 3, 4 and 13, who are the material witnesses on whose evidence the prosecutor relied upon to connect the accused to the alleged commission of murder of the deceased basing on the evidence PW1, who is said to have known from them, did not corroborate the evidence of PW1 and not supported the version of the prosecution.
24.PW5, who is said to be the circumstantial witness, deposed that he is the resident of Nanalnagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad and he is a Computer
Technician by profession and he does not know PW1 to PW4 and he does not know A1 and A2 in the case and he does not know the deceased in the case and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and he does not know why police examined him. PW5 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that police examined and recorded his statement and he stated before the police as in Ex.P5. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of PW5 against the accused. The evidence of PW5 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
Page 17 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
25.The main allegation of the prosecution is that the motive behind the alleged incident is that there was a illegal relationship between the wife of A1 and the deceased and due to that reason A1 along with A2, who is the brother of A1, with a common intention, murdered the deceased. PW6, who is the witness said to have informed the accused regarding the illegal relation of the wife of A1 with the deceased, deposed that he is the resident of Langerhouse,
Hyderabad and he is a painter by profession and he does not know PW1 to
PW4 in the case and he does not know A1 and A2 in the case and he does not know anything about the case and police neither examined nor recorded his statement. Pw6 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that police examined him and recorded his statement and he stated before the police as in Ex.P6. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of PW6 against the accused. The evidence of PW6 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
26.PW12, who is the witness said to be the owner of the auto in which the accused said to have taken the decease forcibly, deposed that he is the resident of Langerhouse, Hyderabad and he is an auto driver and he does not know PW1 to 3 and also the accused and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police neither examined nor recorded his statement. Pw12 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that police examined him and recorded his statement and he stated
before the police as in Ex.P11. The prosecution could not elicit any
Page 18 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 incriminating evidence from the version of PW12 against the accused. The evidence of PW12 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
27.Pw16, who is said to be the owner of CCTV camera seized at Defence colony, deposed that he is the resident of Langerhouse, Hyderabad and he does business and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and about seven years back Langerhouse police came to their house and obtained the
CCTV footage from their house as there was some quarrel took place behind their house. PW16 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that he knows about the facts of the case and police came to their house as murder took place and police obtained the
CCTV footage pertaining to the murder and he knows about the said facts. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of
PW16 against the accused. The evidence of Pw16 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.
28.The evidence of PW8, who is said to be the mother of PW1 and the deceased Imran, is that she is the resident of Chinthal, Hyderabad and she is a house wife and PW1 is her elder son and the deceased Imran was his younger son and PW13 is the brother in law of the deceased and that on 3.12.2018 at about 13.45 hours PW13 and PW4 came to their house and took her deceased son Imran to drink tea and after that she came to know through PW12 that A1 took her son Imran in an auto to the house of A1 and after that PW1 received a phone call from his friend that Imran was murdered by A1 and A2 and then
Page 19 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 immediately she went to the house of A1 at Gousia Msjid, Defence colony, where she noticed the dead body of her son in a pool of blood and after that police examined and recorded her statement.
29.The cross examination of PW8 revealed that she is not having any relationship with A1 and A2 and he is not having any acquaintance with them, nor she had any visiting terms with A1 and A2 and they are unknown persons to her and admitted that she had not stated before the police in her 161 Cr.P.C.
statement recorded by police that she came to know through PW13 that A1 took her son Imran in an auto to the house of A1 and after that PW1 received a phone call from his friend that Imran was murdered by A1 and A2.
30.PW1 never deposed that he received phone call from his friend that
Imran was murdered by A1 and A2 as deposed by PW8. According to PW1 he was informed by PW8 over phone that A1 and A2 attacked the deceased.
Whereas, PW8 never deposed that she informed PW1 over phone. PW8 categorically admitted in her cross examination that she did not state before police that she came to know through PW13 that A1 took her son Imran in an auto to the house of A1 and after that PW1 received phone call from his friend that Imran was murdered by A1 and A2. PW13 and PW4 did not corroborate the evidence of either PW1 or PW12 that they took the deceased from the house of the deceased to take tea and the evidence of Pws.1 and 12 is not
Page 20 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 consistent to the evidence of PW13 and PW4. PW4 and PW13 have not supported the evidence of Pws.1 and 12 that they took the deceased from the house of the deceased.
31.PW9, who is said to be the owner of the pent house, which is the alleged scene of offence, deposed that he had been staying at Bazharghat, Nampally,
Hyderabad and he does business and he owns a house at Defence colony,
Langer House, Hyderabad and let out the pent house portion to A1 on rental basis in the year 2018 and that on one day in the year 2018 he received a phone call that A1 committed murder in front of his house at Defence colony, Langer
House, Hyderabad where he was staying as tenant and later he watched in the news paper about the said murder. He admitted in his cross examination that he stated before the police in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the house, which he had given on request to A1, was H.No.9-1-1/B/3, Defence colony is a residential locality and admitted that the Defence colony is a residential locality and he has not having any personal knowledge about the murder, what ever he had stated in the chief examination is with the information provided or heard from some one.
32.As per the evidence of PW9 he stated to police that the house which he let out to A1 is bearing NO.9-1-1/B/3. Whereas as per the evidence of PW1 the house of A1, which he went, is bearing No.9-1-1/B/35.
Page 21 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
33.The evidence of PW15, the then investing officer, is that on 3.12.2018 at 17.40 hours while he was present in the police station he received a telephonic information that murder took place at Defence colony and immediately he rushed to the spot to protest the scene of offence as per the instructions of their station house officer and accordingly he protected the scene of offence upto the arrival of PW17 and again he received credible information on 6.12.2018 at 9.30 hours about the availability of A1 near MM Pahadi Dargah and accordingly he rushed there and apprehended A1 and produced him before
PW17 and again on 12.12.2018 he was deputed by PW17 to apprehended A2 and accordingly on the same day he apprehended A2 at Defence colony at
Langerhouse and produced him before PW17 for further investigation.
34.PW15 admitted in his cross examination that whenever he received information about the cognizable offence, first he has to register FIR and subsequently he has to conduct the investigation and he did not register any
FIR after receiving telephonic information and prior to visiting the scene of offence and that in view of General Elections Special duties will be allotted to police officers and he does not know whether the special duties will be also allotted to the Revenue officials in view of General Elections.
35.The another the then investigating officer, who is PW17, is that on 3.12.2018 at 17.40 hours he received Telephonic message from an unknown
Page 22 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 person stating that a murder took place at Defence colony and requested for necessary action and basing on the message he along with his staff rushed to the place of offence, where PW1 was present and he handed over the English written complaint i.e., Ex.P1 to him and then he endorsed over the complaint and basing on the complaint and sent it to the police station through his staff and where the same has been registered u/sec.364, 302 r/w 34 IPC by LW25-
Balaswamy, SI of police. ExP14 original FIR was marked through PW17.
36.The further evidence of PW17 revealed that immediately he shifted the dead body of the deceased to Osmania General Hospital Mortuary room through his staff and subsequently during the course of investigation he summoned clues Team to the place of offence for collecting material objects and examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and secured the presence of panchas of PW10 and PW11 and with the assistance of clues team he reached to the spot and where he conduced observation panchanama cum seizure of scene of offence and drafted rough sketch and took photographs and collected material objects with the help of clues team staff in the presence of panch witnesses and packed and sealed the material objects and collected CCTV camera footage which was installed in the house of PW1 and seized DVR in the presence of PW10 and PW11 and examined PW2 to Pw6, PW8, PW9, PW12,
PW13, P16 and recorded their statements and that on 4.12.2018 he visited
OGH Mortuary, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased
Page 23 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 and seized blood stained clothes in the presence of PW10 and PW11 under cover of separate seizure report. MO.7 Ash colour banian, MO8 Inner wear of deceased, which were seized from the body of deceased at the time of inquest, were marked through PW17.
37.According to PW10, he is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and resident of Chengicherla, Boduppal, Medchal District and the then Assistant Engineer, Langer house, Electricity Department and that on 3.12.2018 at about 6.30 PM while he was at his office in Langer House
Electricity office he got a phone call from SI of police and requested him to act as panch witness and asked to come to Defence colony along with
LW15/Thukaram and they both went to Defence colony, Gousia Masjid and there he noticed one male dead body in the pool of blood and police conducted scene of ofence panchanama and seized blood samples, 8 inches, pair of chappals, ground earth, control earth, steel colour round button, one shirt.
MO.4 left foot wear, MO.5 right foot wear, Mo.6 steel colour round button,
Ex.P8 scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P9 rough sketch were marked through
PW10. PW10 further deposed that entire panchanama was read over to him and after that he signed on the panchanama.
38.The cross examination of PW10 revealed that he is not a resident of
Defence colony and it is his jurisdiction of service as such he knows the area and the dead body was lying in front of Ghouse Masjid and as per his statement the material objects were seized from Ghouse Masjid where the dead body was
Page 24 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 lying and that no summons were served on him, but he was orally called by the police and his services were used by the police only once on that day when he visited to defence colony and thereafter police never called him and he had signed an all the documents where police asked him to sign and he had not visited to Osmania General Hospital pertaining to the crime and except on visiting on 3.12.2018, he had not signed on any papers on any other day and that LW15/Tukaram was also not called by the police and their services were not taken by the police on any other day.
39.The evidence of PW11, who is said to be the panch witness for inquest, is that he is the resident of Zoo Park, Hyderabad and the then Line man at
Electricity Department, Langer house Division, Hyderabad and that on 3.12.2018 in the evening hours he went to defence colony as Circle Inspector of police called him and requested him to act as panch witness and then police conducted panchanama and that on 4.12.2018 police again called him to
Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and he alone went to OGH and that
PW10 did not accompany him and then police conducted Ex.P10 inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased and police had shown dead body to him. In the cross examination of PW11 he admitted that as per the instructions of police he came to Osmania General Hospital and signed on some paper and he does not know anything about the facts of the case and further revealed that he did not go near to the dead body and never observed any injuries over the dead body and he had not performed any duties apart from signing in the
Page 25 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
Osmania General Hospital and he did not sign on any other paper apart from inquest panchanama in the case and he does not know the contents of Inquest panchanama Ex.P10 and he just signed on it at the instance of police.
40.As per the evidence of PW17, MO3 blue colour Jeans part was seized from the body of the deceased and it was marked through PW7. Whereas, as per the evidence of PW7, who is said to be the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused NO.1, the Mo.3 blue colour Jeans pant was seized from the accused No.1.
41.The evidence of PW18, who is the then crime scene officer, clues team office in Asif Nagar Division, revealed that on 4.12.2018 their officer received requisition to visit crime scene situated at Defence colony, Hyderabad and accordingly, their clues team visited them and collected clues i.e., blood stains, hair samples, one silver colour button with thread and one VKC Pride Chappal and they handed over the samples to him and inturn after collecting samples from the clues teams, he handed over the same to investigating officer on the next day. He admitted in his cross examination that he did not prepare any list of material seized at the scene of offence received from the clues team and he did not obtain any acknowledgment from the investigating officer after handing over the material objects to him.
Page 26 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
42.PW17 further revealed in his evidence that the post mortem examination was conducted by PW14 and he issued Ex.P13 PME report and later he handed over the dead body of the deceased to their relatives for final rites.
43.PW14, who is the then Professor of Forensic Medicine, Osmania
General Medical College, Hyderabad, deposed that on 4.12.2018 he received requisition from SHO, PS Langer House to conduct autopsy over the dad body of Sd.Imran and accordingly he conducted post mortem examination on the same day in between 4.35 PM and 5.45 PM and noted antimortem injuries 1 to 21.
1. Cut Injury 3 X 1 X 1 Cms deep/Over left nostriid with extension on the left side of upper lip commmunicating with opening of the left nostril, directed above downward and towards right, margins clean cut, tailing towards right.
2. Cut Injury 2 X 1 Cms X Muscle deep, obliquely placed over left side of upper lip, 0.5 cms below Injury No.1, directed above downwards and towards right tailing towards right.
3. Cut Injury 5 X 1 Cms X Muscle Deep on lower half of left cheek extending from left outer end of mostache, obliquely upto mid part of skin over body of left side of mandible, directed above downwards and towards right, tailing towards right, margins clean cut.
4. Cut Injury 5.75 X 1.50 X Muscle deep over left side of chin and upper part
Page 27 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 of neck, oblique, extending from 3 Cms below left angle of mouth upto 2 Cms below and infront of left angle of mandible, directed above downwards and towards right, tailing towards right, margins clean cut.
5. Superficial cut injury 1 X 0.5 Cms X Skin deep over out end of right eye brow, directed above downwards, margins clean cut.
6. Chop Wound, 13 X 4.5 Cms X Chest Cavity Deep, horizental over upper part of chest, extending from 5 Cms inner to anterior axillary fold upto midline, 2 cms above mid part of sternaf notch. The injury cut the skin, sub cuteaneus tissue, medial 1/3rd of left clavide, pectoral muscles, 1st and 2nd ribs in mid clavi cular line, pleura and left appical lobe 6 X 2 X whole thickness at the lever of 2 Cms below apex of left lung, above 1.5 litre of fluid blood present in left plural cavity, direction before backward and upward, margins clean cut, lower margin bevelled tailing towards right.
7. Cut Injury 6 X 3.5 Cms X Muscle deep over front of left arm, upper 1/3 rd horizontally placed, 3 cms below anterior axillary fold, directed beforem backwards, 3 Cms below anterior axillary fold, tailing towards right.
8. Abrasion 2 X 1.5 Cms on outer aspect of left elbow-red.
9. Cut injury 6 X 1 Cms X Skin deep over back of left forearam, horizontally
Page 28 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 placed 8 cms below injury NO.8, directed before backward margins clean cut.
10. Grazed abrasion 8 X 7 Cms over out aspect of left hip, horizontal and 10 X 5 Cms over lower of left hip and left buttock, vertical, 10 X 7 Cms vertical over front of mid part of left thigh.
11. Cut injury 3.5 X 1 Cms X Skin Deep over top back of left shoulder placed in coronal plane, directed above downwards and towards right, tailing towards right.
12. Linear abrasion 10 X 1 Cms over back of left shoulder horizental 2 Cms below level of injury No.11.
13. Cut Injury 6 X 0.5 cms X Skin deep over left scapular region, horizental directed behinds forwards.
14. Abrasion 7 X 1 Cms oblique over left inter scapular region,
15. Stab injury 4 X 1 Cms X 3 Cms Deep over left scaplular region directed above downward and towards left, margins clean cut, tailing towards left.
16. Cut injury 0.5 X 0.2 Cms over mid scapular region, 2 cms on the right of
Page 29 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 middle and 2.5 Cms below nape of neck.
17. Cut Injury 3 X 2 Cms X 3.5 Cms deep ( Muscle deep) over right supra scapular region, 6 cms to the right of midline dircted above dowward right to left and tailing towards left.
18. Cut Injury 6 X 1.5 Cms X Skin deep over top of right shoulder, outer part, directed above downward and forward and to the right.
19. Cut Injury ( Defense Wound), 9 X 3.5 Cms X Bone Deep opver back of right hand, 2 cms above the level of knuckles, horizental. The injury obliquely cut the lower 1/3rd of the part of 2-5 metacarpals, directed above downwards and backwards.
20. Grazed abrasion 20 X 16 Cms over front of right side of abdomen, vertical extending from 6 Cms above the leverl of umblicus upto 2 cms above the level of skin over lying pubic bone, red.
21. A contusion of 2 X 1 Cms on internal surface of scalp over left side of occipital region, red.
44.PW14 further deposed that all internal organs were found to be pale and he opined the cause of death as due to chop wound of left side of chest and accordingly he issued Ex.P13 post mortem examination report and all the
Page 30 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 mentioned injuries, except injury No.8, 10, 14, 20 and 21 can be caused with the sharp edged weapon i.e., Mo.1 and the injuries are fresh and red in colour.
He admitted in his cross examination that as per his report three types of injuries which are caused by sharp weapon is mentioned in the report and the cut injury and stab injury can be caused by sharp edged weapons like knife, sword and axe and that the chop injuries can be caused by sharp edged axe, sword or sickle and further revealed that the injuries mentioned in his report can be caused by using different weapons, but majority are caused by sharp edged weapon.
45.PW12, who is said to be the witness given the auto bearing No.TS 11UB 7265 to the brother of A2 by name Mohammed Maqbool on rental basis and the
A2 who said to have taken the keys of the said auto and said to have committed the alleged kidnapping of deceased along with A1, deposed that he is the resident of Langer house, Hyderabad and he is an auto driver and he does not know PW1 to PW3 and also the accused and that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police neither examined nor recorded his statement. PW12 turned hostile and denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in his cross examination that the police examined and recorded his statement and he stated before police as in Ex.P11. The prosecution could not elicit any incriminating evidence from the version of PW12 against the accused. The evidence of PW12 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.
Page 31 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
46.The cross examination of PW17 revealed that as per his investigation, the motive for the murder of the deceased was the extra material affair of the wife of A1 with the deceased and admitted that he had not examined the wife of A1 nor shown her as accused in the case and he had not collected any documentary evidence including the phone call data, chatting records of the wife of A1 and the deceased and further revealed that as per his investigation there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was any relationship between the wife of A1 and the deceased and also admitted that his investigation does not reveal that A1 was married at the time when the deceased was murdered and the mother of deceased, PW8, had not stated anything about the extra marital affairs of the deceased with the wife of A1.
47.The main allegation against the accused by the prosecution is that the deceased developed intimacy with the wife of A1 which was converted into illegal contact and that Pw6, who is the friend of A1, noticed about the illegal activities of deceased and informed A1 and shown some conversations in his cell phone and A1 believed the version of PW6 and hatched plan to eliminate the deceased with the help of A2. Except the mere allegation, nothing was elicited from the version of PW6 by the prosecution to prove the version of the prosecution about the alleged attribution of illegal relationship between the deceased and the wife of A1 to support the version of prosecution to establish the alleged motive or intention on the part of the A1 to commit murder of the deceased with the help of A2.
Page 32 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
48.PW17 also admitted in his cross examination that his investigation does not disclose the phone numbers from which PW1 received the phone call from
PW8 and PW1 and PW8 are not the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and
PW1 had not stated in the complaint the door number where A1 resides and
PW1 had not stated in the complaint that PW2 had informed him that Shabbir had attacked his brother Imran (deceased). Whereas, PW1 had denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused in his cross examination that he had not stated in his complaint that PW2, neighbour of Shabbir, informed him that Shabbir attacked his brother Imran on the left side of chest in front of the house of PW9. PW17 admitted in his cross examination that PW1 had not stated in his complaint or in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that when PW1 was at the scene of offence PW13 informed him that PW13 along with PW4 and deceased was consuming tea at Netaji Nagar Sub station and at that time A1 and A2 came to the spot in an auto and A1 took the deceased forcibly and then
PW13 came to the rescue and A1 pushed him aside and took the deceased and attacked him and committed murder. Whereas, PW1 denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused in his cross examination that he had not stated in his complaint or in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that when he was at the scene of offence, PW13 informed him that PW4 and deceased and himself were consuming tea at Netaji Nagar Electric Sub station, Langar house and at that time A1 and A2 came to the spot and one Mohd Hameed came to the rescue and A1 pushed him aside and took his deceased brother Imran to his house and
Page 33 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 attacked on him and committed murder of him. The evidence of PW1 is not consistent to the evidence of PW17 regarding the alleged presence of PW4 and
PW13 at the scene of offence. Further more PW4 and PW13, were alleged to have been present at the scene of offence, did not support the evidence of PW1 and not supported the version of the prosecution.
49.PW17 also admitted in his cross examination that PW9 had stated that he is the owner of the house bearing No.9-1-1/B/3, Defence colony, Langer house and as per his investigation that scene of offence is at H.No.9-1-1/B/35 and as per his investigation PW9 had stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that A1 was residing in the house bearing No.9-1-1/B/3 and he had not examined the owner of the house bearing No.9-1-1/B/35 nor he had collected any documentary evidence to show who was the owner or tenant of the house and as per his investigation no incident took place at door No.9-1-1/B/3.
50.PW17 also admitted in his cross examination that material objects like slippers and hair were found at the scene of offence, though he collected, he had not sent those material objects to FSL for DNA Test and also revealed that he had the knowledge that if a DNA test is conducted, the origin of the hair can be established and also admitted that no reason has been stated in his investigation for not sending the above said material objects to FSL and that the material objects seized from the accused were not sent to FSL for analysis and
Page 34 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 report and the material objects alleged to have been seized from the accused persons have not been sent to FSL for analysis and report.
51.PW17 admitted in his cross examination that PW8 had not stated before him that on 3.12.2018 at about 13.45 hours PW13 had come to the house of
PW8 and took the deceased Imran to drink tea. Whereas, PW8 denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in her cross examination that she had not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C.statement that on 3.12.2018 at about 13.45 hours
PW13 and PW4 came to their house and took her deceased son Imran to drink tea.
52.The further cross examination of PW17 revealed that on 6.12.2018 at 9.30 hours PW15 received credible information about the availability of A1 and then PW15 rushed along with the staff and apprehended A1 and produced
before him and then he secured two panchas i.e., PW7 and LW3/Om Prakash
and recorded confession statement of A1 and that PW15 seized MO2 and Mo3 and one blue colour Jeans pant and also seized one Pulsar Bike registration bearing No.A09 BQ 4990 and one blood stained coconut cutter (sickle) from business at Lakshmi Nagar road, Attapur at the instance of A1 under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and on the same day he produced
A1 before the court for Judicial custody and that on 12.12.2018 on credible information A2 had been arrested at Defence Colony, Langer House by PW15 and produced before him and then he secured the presence of PW10 and PW11 as panch witnesses and A2 voluntarily confessed about the offence and on that
Page 35 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 he seized the auto bearing registration No.TS 11 UB 7265 from his possession, which was involved in the offence, under cover of panchanama and on the same day he produced A2 before the court for Judicial remand and that the material obects which were collected from the scene of offence and blood stained clothes of the deceased had been sent to FSL for examination and report and that LW18/G.Swarna Rani, Scientific officer of TSFSL, Red Hills,
Hyderabad, examined and furnished her opinion vide SER/09/2019,
dt:23.5.2019 and later he gave requisition to VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Lw19/S.Kshama Deshpande recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.
statements of Pws.1 to 4 and after receiving the FSL report and PME report and after collecting all the documents he filed charge sheet against the accused.
Ex.P15 final opinion of FSL report was marked through PW17.
53.PW17 admitted in his cross examination that as per his investigation
Mo.1 knife was alleged to have been seized from the public place in the bushes after three days of the incident.
54.PW7, who is the then Deputy Tahasildar, MRO, Tahasildar Office at
Maredpally, deposed that on 6.12.2018 at about 12.15 PM Langer house police called him to the police station and along with him LW13/Om Prakash was also present and police requested them to act as panchas and they both agreed for the same and A1 was present in the custody and Ch.Srinivas, Inspector of
Page 36 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 police was present in the police station and that on enquiry with A1, he confessed his guilt and then A1 led them to Laxminagar, Attapur to show the weapon with which he committed the offence and he had shown coconut cutting knife from the bushes near Laxminagar and the same was seized in their presence and police placed the panch chits and seized the coconut cutting knife in their presence and police also seized peach colour T shirt, one Bike from the possession of A1 and A1 stated that after the commission of offence, he had thrown the knife and the panchanama was read over to him and after that he signed on it. Ex.P7, the relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 was marked through PW7. MO.1, the coconut cutting knife, MO2, the peach colour T shirt and Mo.3, the Blue colour Jeans pant, were marked through PW7.
55.In the cross examination of Pw7 he admitted that his Superior Officer is
MRO and he has to take permission from his Superior Officer in case of going for other duties and revealed that he had not filed any document to show that he had received written instructions from his Superior Officer and he had not filed any document to show that he was on duty on 6.12.2018 and admitted that in panchanama it was nowhere mentioned in which language the accused gave confession and it is no where mentioned in the panchanama about the descriptive particulars of the weapon and the Jeans and T shirts are easily available in the local market and Mo.1 is also available in the open market and there is light difference between the signature on the panch chit and on the
Page 37 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 panchanama and further revealed that both signatures are his signatures and admitted that on the panch chit, there is no date at the signature and he did not furnish any information to his Superior Officer regarding his work on the date of the alleged incident and that after visiting the police station, police informed him about the contents of the panchanama.
56.The evidence of PW17 is not consistent to the evidence of PW7. As per the evidence of PW17 he seized MO.3 blue colour Jeans pant from the body of deceased. Whereas, as per the evidence of PW7, MO.3 was seized from the A1 under cover of panchanama. There is a controversy between the evidence of
PW17 and Pw7 whether Mo.3 was seized from the dead body of deceased as per the version of PW17 or Mo.3 was seized from the A1 as per the version of
PW7 to believe the alleged seizure to place reliance on the evidence of PW17 and Pw7. Moreover, PW11, who is said to be the inquest panch, did not depose regarding the seizure of Mos.7 and 8 from the dead body of the deceased.
Again Pw17 deposed that MO3 was seized from A1 by PW15. Whereas, Pw15 did not depose regarding the seizure of Mo3 by him. PW15 also did not depose regarding the seizure of Mos.1, 2 by him as deposed by PW17. PW10 and
PW11 did not depose regarding the seizure of auto bearing No.TS 11UB 7265 from the possession of A2 in their presence as deposed by PW17.
Page 38 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
57.As per the evidence of PW15 the information regarding the murder received by him through telephone on 3.12.2018 at 17.40 hours. Whereas, as per the evidence of PW7 and PW17 the alleged seizure was made on 6.12.2018 from the A1. As per the evidence of PW17 the MO1 was alleged to have been seized from the public place in the bushes after three days of the incident.
PW17 categorically deposed that he had not sent the material objects seized from the scene of offence to FSL for DNA test and also the material objects alleged to have been seized from the accused were also not sent to FSL for analysis and report. As per Ex.P15 FSL report the items 1 to 12 sent for analysis show origin of blood stains on item No.1 to 4, 6 to 11 is of human and the origin of blood stain on item No.12, which is the sickle with wooden handle blade, could not be determined. There is no evidence of presence of human blood on the MO.1 as disclosed by Ex.P15 FSL report.
58.In Raja Naykar Vs State of Chhattisgarh in CrlA.No.902/2023,
dt:24.1.2024 Hon’ble the Apex court held that “the property seizure memo
would show that the dagger was seized from a place assessible to one and all.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 21st October, 2009 and the recovery was made on 25th October, 2009. As per the FSL report, the blood stains found on the dagger were of human blood. However, the FSL report does not show that the blood found on the dagger was of the blood group of the deceased. Apart from that, even the scrological report is not available.” The
Hon’ble Apex court has referred the Judgment of Muskeem alias Sirajudeen Vs
Page 39 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of blood stained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.”.
59.The evidence of PW17 is not consistent to the evidence of Pws.2 to 6 and PW12 and PW13 as Pws.2 to 6, 12 and 13 denied the suggestion put by the prosecution in their cross examination that they stated before police as in Ex.P2 to P6 and P11 and P12. Whereas, PW17 deposed that PW2 to 6 and PW12,
PW13 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to 6, P11 and P12. Pws.2 to 6, 12, 13 did not corroborate the evidence of PW17 and not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution could not elicit the reason for the hostility of
Pws.2 to 6, 12 and 13 against the prosecution.
60.Except the circumstantial evidence, there is no direct evidence regarding the alleged commission of murder. Even in the evidence of prosecution witness on record, there is a missing of link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence. The evidence of PW.1 is that he was informed by
PW.8 that A1, A2 attacked the deceased at the residence of A1 and where he noticed about the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 who informed him that A1 attacked the deceased with coconut cutting knife and PW.13 informed that in the presence of PW.13, PW.4 the A1 and A2 forcibly took the deceased in a
Page 40 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 auto, who said to have come to the rescue of deceased. Admittedly PW.1 is not the eye witness to the alleged incident.
61.The evidence of PW.8 is that PW.13, PW.4 took the deceased to take tea and she came to know that through PW.13 that A1 took the deceased in a auto to the house of A1 and after that PW.1 received a phone call from his friend that A1 and A2 murdered the deceased and she noticed the dead body of the deceased in the house of A1. As per the version of PW.8, she is not the eye witness to the alleged commission of murder of the deceased and she came to know through PW.13. PW.1 did not depose that his friend informed him that
A1 and A2 murdered the deceased as deposed by PW.8 and contrary to the evidence of PW.8 the PW.1 deposed that PW.8 informed him that A1 and A2 attacked the deceased.
62.PW.2 and 3 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the alleged commission of murder of the deceased, did not depose anything against the accused persons and nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW.2 and 3 by the prosecution.
63.PW.4, who is said to be eye witness regarding the alleged taking of the deceased by A1 and A2 forcibly, did not depose anything against the
Page 41 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021 accused persons and nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW.4 by the prosecution.
64.Pw13, who is said to be the eye witness regarding the alleged taking of the deceased by A1 and A2 forcibly and who said to have informed PW1 and PW8 regarding the alleged taking away the deceased by A1 and A2, did not depose anything against the accused persons and nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW13 by the prosecution.
65.PW.5, who is said to be the circumstantial witness, did not depose anything about the accused persons and nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW.5 by the prosecution.
66.The alleged motive behind the alleged commission of murder of the deceased as per the version of the prosecution is that there was an illegal contact between the wife of the A1 and deceased and with the help of A2, who is the brother, committed the murder of the deceased.
67.PW.6, who is said to be the witness who informed A1 regarding the illegal relationship of the wife of A1 and the deceased, did not depose anything against the accused persons and nothing could be elicited from the evidence of
PW.6 by the prosecution.
Page 42 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
68.There is a controversy with regard to the house number of the house from the evidence of PW9 who said to be the owner of the house, where the A1 was said to have been resided and there is no proof of evidence filed by the prosecution regarding the alleged stay of A1 in the scene of offence house.
69.The evidence of PW10, who is said to be the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, is regarding the seizure of Mos.4 to 6 from the scene of offence under Ex.P8 scene of offence panhanama and Ex.P9 rough sketch. The evidence of PW11, who is said to be the inquest panch witness, is regarding the conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and his cross examination revealed that he did not go near to the dead body and never observed any injuries over the dead body and he does not know the contents of the inquest panchanama.
70.The evidence of PW12, who is said to be the owner of the auto, which A2 said to have taken for the alleged commission of the offence and in which the A1 andA2 said to have taken the deceased to the house of A1, did not depose anything against the accused persons and nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW12 by the prosecution.
71.The evidence of PW14, who is the Medical Officer, is regarding the holding of autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and as per his evidence the injuries mentioned in Ex.P13 can be caused by using different weapons, but majority are caused by sharp edged weapon.
Page 43 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
72.The evidence of PW18 is regarding collection of blood stains, hair samples, one silver colour button with thread and one VKC pride chappal by clues team and handing over the same to him and his handing over the same to the investigating officer.
73.The evidence of PW16 is that police obtained CCTV footage from his house. Whereas, PW15 or Pw17, the investigating officers, did not depose anything regarding the handing over of CCTV footage to them by PW16.
Whereas, PW17 deposed that he collected CCTV footage from the house of
PW1, but the prosecution did not file any CCTV footage in the court.
74.There is controversy in the evidence of PW7 and PW17 regarding the alleged seizure of MO3 whether it was seized from the A1 as deposed by PW7 or it was seized from the deceased as deposed by PW17. PW11 did not depose that PW17 seized Mo.3 in his presence. The further evidence of PW17 is that
PW15 seized MO.3 from A1 in his presence. Whereas, PW15 never deposed that he seized Mos 1 to 3 from A1 and auto bearing No.TS 11UB7265 from
A2 as deposed by PW17. PW10 and PW11 never deposed that PW15 or PW17 seized the auto bearing No.TS 11UB 7265 from the possession of A2 in their presence. Moreover MO1 was alleged to have been seized from public place in the bushes after two days of the alleged incident. PW17 categorically deposed that he did not send material objects seized from scene of offence to FSL for
Page 44 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
DNA test and if the DNA test is conducted the origin of hair can be established and no reason has been stated in his evidence for not sending the material objects to FSL and the material objects seized from the accused were not sent to FSL for analysis and report. The FSL report under Ex.P15 does not reveal the origin of blood stains on MO1 and the presence of human blood on MO1 was not detected in the FSL report. The alleged offence took place on 3.12.2018 and the alleged recovery of MO1 was on 6.12.2018 i.e., 2 days of the alleged offence. Nothing on record proved any incriminating evidence from
MO.1 against A1 and A2 to connect the accused to the alleged offence.
75.For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the discussion coupled with the decision, it can be concluded that the chain of circumstances which are being sought to be projected by the prosecution to be complete has glaring holes and significant gaps which came to be the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons and the iota of doubt crept in the sequence of the events and the benefit should flow to the accused.
Mere suspicion alone irrespective of the fact that it is very strong cannot be a substantive proof. The prosecution has not proved the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. The A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 364 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.
Page 45 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
76.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.364 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. Mos.1 to 8 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked Pulsar Bike bearing
No.A-09BQ 4990 and auto bearing No.TS 11UB 7265 shall be returned to their registered owners after the expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation directly to Typist of this Court, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of October, 2025.
Sd/-
IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION: PW.1: Syed Farhan
PW.2: Shaik Aslam
PW.3: Mohd Sadiq
PW.4: M.A.Raheem
PW.5: Nadeem Shaik
PW.6: Mohd Sohail
PW.7: P.Deepak Rao
PW.8: Fouzia Begum
Page 46 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
PW.9: Syed Ali Ahmed
PW.10: S.Tirupathi Rao
PW.11: G.Tukaram
PW.12: Shaik Javed Ali
PW.13: Mohd Maqsood
PW.14: Dr.Mohd Taqiuddin Khan
PW.15: Shaik Kaviuddin
PW.16: Mohd Dilawar Ali
PW.17: Ch.Srinivas
PW.18: KVR Chary
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :Nil
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Report
Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2
Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3
Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4
Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5
Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6
Ex.P7 : Relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of A1
Ex.P8 : Scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch
Ex.P10: Inquest Panchanama
Page 47 of 47 Fair Judgment in S.C. No.265 of 2021
Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW12
Ex.P12: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW13
Ex.P13: Post Mortem Examination Report
Ex.P14: Original FIR
Ex.P15: Final Opinion of FSL Report
FOR DEFENCE : NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS :
MO.1: Coconut cutting knife
MO.2: Peach colour T Shirt
MO.3: Blue colour Jeans Pant
MO.4: Left Foot Wear
MO.5: Right Foot Wear
MO.6: Steel Colour Round Button
MO.7: Ash Colour Banian
MO.8: Inner wear of the deceased
Sd/-
IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD