Page 1 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT
NIZAMABAD
Present: Smt. G.V.N. Bharatha Laxmi, Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabbad. FAC: I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025
SC. No.227 of 2022
[Cr.No.106 of 2020 of P.S. Morthad]
Name(s) & particulars of 1. Mohammad Athaulla, S/o Sanaulla, accused person (s)Age: 48 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o H.No.7-83, Islam Pura, Morthad (village & Mandal), Nizamabad.
2. Yasmina Begum, W/o Abdul Samad Faisal, Age: 33 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Beedi Roller, R/o H.No.6-78, Morthad(village&Mandal), Nizamabad.
ChargesU/sec. 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.106/2020 Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court A1 and A2 found not guilty Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences Under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as
Page 2 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 contemplated Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The non-valuable case property i.e. MO’s. 1 to 18 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
This case is coming on this the 14.07.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State, and of Sri M. Rajender Reddy, Advocate for the accused; and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Bheemgal Circle, Police Station
Morthad has filed this charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC vide charge sheet dated 28.02.2022 in Cr.No.106/2020 dated 20.12.2020.
2.1The contents of the case are that on 20.12.2020 at 14.00 hours, the Lw-1/A2 Smt. Yasmin Begum came to Morthad PS and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that on 17.12.2020 as usual her husband Abdul Samad Faisal left the house by saying he was going to attend his painter work, but not returned till 6 pm as such she enquired with her relatives over the phone but did not get any information. She further stated that she along with her brother
Mohammad Mujahiuddin together searched for husband in
Page 3 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 surrounding areas, but invain and she has given the descriptive details of her husband and that she expressed the delay caused reporting the matter due to search of her husband and requested to trace out her husband Abdul Samad Faisal and do them justice as per law.
2.2Basing on the contents of the above complaint, the
M.Sampath Kumar, SI of Police, Morthad/Lw-26 has registered a case vide Cr.No.106/2020 U/h “Man Missing” and took up the investigation.
2.3During the course of the investigation, the Lw-26 examined
Lw-1/A2 and recorded her statement and entrusted the investigation to T.Muthyam Rao, HC/Lw-25, on that Lw-25 has visited the residence of the Lw-1/A2, and examined and recorded the statement of the Lw-2 and secured presence of two mediators i.e.
Abdul Nazeer and Mohammad Abdul Javeed (Lws-15 and 16) and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and also drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence in CDF and secured the presence of
Smt. Naseema Begum and Shaik Safiya (Lws-3 and 4), examined and recorded their statements and handed over the CD file to the
Lw-26 for further investigation. Then Lw-26 has prepared the
Page 4 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Lookout notice of the missing man and sent Look out notice to the all police stations of Telangana State and also requested the
Inspector of Police, CCRB, Nizamabad with a request to send the photos of unknown dead bodies.
2.4On 26.12.2020 the L.Jeevan Reddy, CI of Police, Soan/Lw-29 has sent a Lookout Notice of the un-identified male deceased to
Morthad Police Station in the Case vide in Cr.No.110/2020
U/sec.302, 201 IPC for comparison with Man Missing cases and basing on the clues and similar features of dead body of tallied with the man missing of this case. As such the Lw-29 collected a copy of
F.I.R vide No.106/2020 U/h Man Missing of Morthad PS and also collected CDRs of the deceased and suspected persons. The family members of the deceased identified the deceased Abdul Samad
Faisal, as such the Lw-29 by secured the presence of family members of the missing man, examined and recorded their statements, who expressed their suspicious on the wife of the deceased as she had been having illegal affair with A1, basing on which, Lw-29 has collected CDRs of the deceased and A1 & A2, according to which it is said to be revealed that A1 & A2 committed murder of the missing man at the house of missing man at Morthad
Page 5 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Village and A1 took the dead body in an auto bearing No.TS-21-T- 1716 and thrown the dead body on the outskirts of Burugupally
Village under the limits of Mamada Police Station to screen out the evidence, as such he arrested the A1 & A2 on 06.01.2021 at 09.00 hours at Morthad Village and A1 & A2 confessed to have committed murder of the deceased by beating on the head of the deceased by
A1 with a stick and strangulating with a rope and also cut the right leg of the deceased from knee to foot, burnt the face and hair to disappear his identity. Later he produced the A1 & A2 before the
Hon'ble Addl. Judl.First Class Magistrate, Nirmal and sent them to
judicial remand. Since Lw-29 transferred, he haded over the CD file in Cr.No.110/2020 to Mamada PS to P.Suresh, SI of Police, Morthad
PS/Lw.27 on point of jurisdiction dt.19.01.2021 on 06.02.2021.
2.5On 06.02.2021 basing on the transferred CD file letter of the
C.P, Nizamabad, Lw-27 has altered the section of Law from Man
Missing to U/sec.302,201 r/w 34 IPC and sent the section altered letter to the court and informed the same to T.Srinath Reddy, CI of
Police Bheemgal Circle/Lw-30 as well as to all the concerned. On receipt of the section alter letter, Lw-30 has took-up further investigation into this case from Lw-27 as the case is grave-in-
Page 6 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 nature and verified his investigation done by Lw-27. Further, Lw-30 visited the scene of offence situated at Morthad village and observed minutely. As per the contents of the complaint of the Kotnak
Gangaram/Lw-5, K.Vinay, SI of Police, Mamada/Lw-28 has registered a case in Cr.No.110/2020 U/sec.302, 201 IPC at Mamada
PS, Nirmal District. Lw-28 examined Lw-5 and recorded his statement.
2.6Thereafter, Lw-28 handed over the CD file to L.Jeevan Reddy,
CI of Police, Soan, Nirmal District/Lw-29 as the case is grave in nature, Lw-29 took up the investigation from Lw-28 and verified the investigation done by Lw-28 and found it on correct lines. Lw-29 visited the scene of offence situated at Burgupally outskirts and examined Lw-5 orally but not recorded his statement as earlier he stated same version before the Lw-28. Thereafter, Lw-29 has examined and recorded the statement of Marla Rajanna/Lw-6. Lw- 29 took the photographs of the scene of offence with the help of Edla
Deekshit/Lw-10, then Lw-29 secured Jadhav Jalam Singh and
Sayyed Shahid (Lws-17 & 18) and drafted the scene of offence in
Crime Detail Form and seized 1). Blood stained earth, 2). Control earth, 3). White Colour Bag with stains is consisting the name of
Page 7 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 "Gayatri Sugar Limited", Kamareddy Unit, Adloor Yellareddy before the said mediators. Lw-29 brought the dead body from the bushes and opened the blanket with the help of Athram Maruthi, Mesram
Kishan and Thodasham Shyam Rao (Lws-7 to 9) then Lw-29 found one unknown male dead body in that blanket, aged about 40 to 45 years which it was totally in decomposed state. Thereafter Lw-27 examined and recorded the statement of said Lws-7 to 9. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of said Lws-17 & 18 and found that the deceased right leg was not found from knee to foot and red colour polythene cover was covered the knee of right leg and his face was covered with one towel, white colour bag & gunny bag. The deceased worn light yellow colour ready made full shirt brand name is "Hollywood" and light blue colour ready made cotton jean pant and brand labels on the shirt and pant was torn and he is not having griddle (Molathadu) and his penis found circumcision and also not found banion and drawer on his body, basing on the physical features, the deceased seems to be Muslim and face of the deceased was totally decomposed and tongue was came out and bitten between teeth, he had small beard and black hair, Lw-29 taken photographs of dead
Page 8 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 body with the help of Edla Deekshith/Lw-10 and examined and recorded his statement. During the inquest the Lw-29 seized 1).
Light Yellow colour ready made shirt brand name "Hollywood" 2).
Light Blue colour ready made cotton jean, 3). Red colour polythene cover consisting the name of "Rose Kids wear, Nizamabad", 4). Red and blue lined white colour towel, 5). One Gunny bag, 6). White colour bag, 7). One big blanket, 8). Threads which were used to tie the dead body in blanket in the presence of said Lws-17 & 18. Later
Lw-29 gave a requisition to Dr.C. Venugopala Krishna/Lw-22 (Duty
Medical officer, Govt. Area Hospital, Nirmal, who visited the scene of offence and conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserved the hyoid bone and Viscera box of deceased and kept pending his opinion.
2.7After completion of autopsy the dead body was handed over to the Lw-5 for funeral as the dead body is unknown and totally decomposed and taken proper receipt from him. Later Lw-29 published in print media and electronic media and sent look out notices to surrounding Police Stations and all SHOs in Telanagana
State and on 26.12.2020, Lw-29 served B/H look out notices in
Police Stations Yerugatla, Morthad, Kammarpally, Kamareddy Town,
Page 9 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
CCRB, Nizamabad and DCRB, Kamareddy. Further, Lw-29 collected
FIR's of man missing cases data from neighboring districts and basing on the clues and similar features of dead body tallying with
Morthad PS crime. Lw-29 collected FIR copy from Morthad PS in
Cr.No.106/2020 U/h Man Missing and also collected suspected persons mobile numbers. Later Lw-29 sent a requisition to Service
Providers through SP, Nirmal to furnish CDR details of suspected mobile Nos.9000667439, 9390016574, 9121836714 and 9963711567. Lw-29 collected CDR analysis data through online from service operators. Basing on the clues collected in this case the physical features of dead body and missing person in
Cr.No.106/2020 of Morthad PS is partially matching.
2.8Further, on 26.12.2020, Lw-29 called the missing person’s wife Yasmin Begum (A2) to Mamada PS and shown the photos, cloths and articles of the deceased, which were seized by Police but she did not identify. Then Lw-29 called missing person's elder sister
Safia Begum (Lw-4) and his maternal uncle Abdul Rasheed (Lw-11) to Mamada PS and shown the photos, cloths and articles of the deceased, which were seized by Police, on that Smt. Shaik Safiya and Abdul Rasheed (Lws-4 & 11) were identified the dead body as
Page 10 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Faizal by seeing photos, cloths and articles of the deceased.
Accordingly Lw-29 examined and recorded the statements of Lws-4 & 11, who expressed doubt on A2 and A1, who were maintaining illicit sexual relations from long time.
2.9Further, on 27.12.2020, Lw-29 sent a requisition to the SDPO,
Nirmal to forward the hyoid bone of deceased to CHC, Khanapur for analysis and report and also on 28.12.2020 again sent a requisition to the SDPO, Nirmal to forward the material objects of deceased to the RFSL, Karimnagar for analysis and report. On 29.12.2020, LW- 29 collected PME report from Lw-22/ Duty Medical Officer and also collected authorization letters from the SDPO, Nirmal. On 30.12.2020, Lw-29 sent the seized material objects to RFSL,
Karimnagar under escort PCs-3262, 599 for analysis and report and they were deposited the material objects in RFSL, Karimnagar Dt:
30.12.2020. On same day Lw-29 sent the hyoid bone of deceased at
Community Health Centre, Khanapur under the escort of PC 1870 of
Mamada PS for analysis and report. On 31.12.2020, Lw-29 sent a requisition to the SDPO, Nirmal with a request to forward the femur bone of deceased for DNA finger printing comparison with Lw-4 who is sister of deceased and Lw-14 who is elder daughter of the
Page 11 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 deceased and they are willing to go for DNA comparison.
2.10 On 03.01.2021, LW-29 examined and recorded the statements of M.A. Naseer and Abdul Aleem (Lws-12 & 13) at Morthad. Basing on the statement of Lw-4, clues collected in this case and call details of suspected mobile numbers LW-29 came into conclusion that A1 and A2 killed the deceased and thrown the dead body of deceased in forest area of Burgupally village to disappearance the evidences of this offence and to escape from the case. Later on 05.01.2021, Lw- 29 again proceeded to Morthad village and examined and recorded the statements of Ayesha Siddiqua (Lw-14).
2.11 The investigating officer A. Venkateshwarlu, CI of Police,
Bheemgal Circle/Lw.31 filed charge sheet after completing the investigation.
3.On filing and verification of the said charge sheet, the learned
I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against the accused person, furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the court of District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad U/Sec.209 of
Page 12 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Cr.P.C. vide PRC No.4/2022, since the matter is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. Later, the Principal District and Sessions
Court, Nizamabad made over the case to this court to dispose of the case according to Law vide SC.No.227 of 2022.
4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 and having heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and on considering the material on record, charges for the offences punishable under section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC are framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them, wherein A1 and A2 denied the charges, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined
Pws.1 to 22 and marked Ex.P1 to P31 and M.Os.1 to 18. The accused No.1 and 2 did not examine any witnesses and did not mark any documents on their behalf.
6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the contents of incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported
Page 13 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 no defence evidence.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.
8.Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused persons A1 and A2 for the offences
punishable U/sec.302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC?
POINT:- 9.1This has been the case of brutal murder of the deceased Abdul
Samad Faisal who is none other than the husband of A2. The allegation of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 16/17.12.2022 to 18.12.2022 at 5.30 hours A1 and A2 beat the deceased on his head with a stick and strangulated him by tying a rope around his throat and pulled hardly and subsequently tried to burn the face and hair and cut the right leg of the deceased from the knee, thereby tried to vanish his identity and tried to disappearance of evidence by packing the dead body into a blanket and thrown away the dead body in the bushes beside NH-44 Road, Burgupally village with an intention to escape from the case and continued their extra marital affair. In order to substantiate its allegations, the
Page 14 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 prosecution has got examined Pw.1 to Pw.22 and also got marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 and MO.1 to MO.18.
9.2On the other side except admitting the relationship of A2 with the deceased, they have denied all the allegations.
10.Here, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued in force that this is a case of brutal murder of deceased/ Abdul Samad
Faisal by A1 and A2. A2 is none other than the wife of the deceased.
There is an illicit intimacy in between A1 and A2 and in order to continue their relation, they have hatched a plan to get rid of the deceased. Accordingly, they have killed the deceased and thrown the dead body in the forest of Burugupally Village to disappear the evidence. The testimony of Pw.2 who is none other than the sister of deceased, has categorically established about the illegal contacts between A1 and A2 as she was directly informed by the deceased regarding the same. For that she and deceased placed the matter
before the Village Committee Members of Morthad in respect of their
illegal intimacy and there A1 and A2 were admonished, but they never mend their behaviour. the said fact is corroborated by the testimony of Pw.6, who is maternal uncle of the deceased as well as
Page 15 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 even according to him, he was informed by the deceased about the illicit relation between A1 and A2, further, the said fact was supported by Pw.7, who is none other than Vide-President of Jama
Masjid of Morthad, even according to him, the matter of illicit contact between A1 and A2 was placed before the Masjid Committee and advised them to live amicably, but A2 never mend her behaviour. Therefore, the prosecution has categorically established the intention of A1 and A2 to get rid of the life of the deceased to continue their illicit relationship. Further, the confession of the A1 and A2 and seizure of material objects used in the commission of offence has corroborated and strengthen the case of prosecution.
Further, the identification of the dead body of the deceased was categorically established from the testimony of Pw.2, who is none other than the sister of the deceased as well as the said fact has been conclusively proved with Ex.P31 NDA report that the DNA of the daughter of the deceased i.e. Pw.8 is matched with the DNA of deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has categorically established the death of the deceased. Finding of the dead body of the deceased at the Forest of Burugupally Village has been supported by the testimony of Pws.3 and 4. Further, the medical evidence of
Page 16 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Doctor/Pw.13, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has categorically established that the right lower limb below the knee of the deceased was found cut. Further, the death of the deceased is established. Further, the cause of the death of the deceased was due to injury over scull and fracture of Hyoid bone of neck. Further, the confession of A1 and A2 led to the seizure of material objects has strengthen the case of prosecution that on the intervening night of 16/17.12.2020, A1 and A2 killed the deceased and kept the dead body in the store room, later on the intervening night of 17.12.2020 the dead body of the deceased was shifted in
Auto of A1 from Morthad to Burugupally Village forest area.
Further, from the Call data record particulars produced by the prosecution, it is clearly establish that A1 made a phone call from his phone No.99637115672, 9121836714 which is a phone of A2 as confessed by A1. Further, the call data of A1 and A2 clearly proved the communication between A1 and A2 and their location near
Mamada village. Therefore, the prosecution has categorically established that on intervening night of 16/17.12.2020 A1 and A2 killed the deceased/ Abdul Samad Faisal by beating on the head of the deceased with a stick, then strangulated him by tying a rope
Page 17 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 around his throat and pulled hardly and subsequently tried to burn the face and hair and also cut the right leg from the knee and torn and tried to disappear of evidence of offence by packing the dead body into a blanket and thrown away the dead body in the bushes beside NH-44 Road, Burgupally village on the intervening night of on 17/18.12.2020 with an intention to escape from the case to continue their extra marital affair.
11.1 On the other side, the learned defence counsel has argued vehemently that this is a case completely basing on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to draw an inference with respect to chain of circumstances there in are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irrepressible conclusion that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be in a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to prove all the circumstances to complete the chain to establish the guilt of the accused. The alleged intention of A1 and A2 to perpetrate the crime is illicit relation between them as per the prosecution, but on that effect, the prosecution failed to produce any cogent evidence, thereby the prosecution has categorically failed to
Page 18 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 prove their contention of existence of illicit relation in between A1 and A2. Further, this has been the allegation of the prosecution that A1 and A2 murdered the deceased at the house of deceased and
A2 at Morthad. On 20.12.2020, Pw.17 registered a case in
Cr.No.106/2020 under head “man missing”, but there was no allegation of any offence more so a murder at the house of deceased and A2. Further, the allegation of the prosecution is that the alleged murder which has been committed on the intervening night of 16/17.12.2020 and the dead body of the deceased was kept in the house till the early hours of 18.12.2020. Thereby according to their allegation, the dead body of the deceased was kept in the store room for more than 24 hours. Naturally, by 24 hours a dead body will start decomposing and smelling and smell would have automatically permeated in the surrounding areas, but surprisingly, no one noticed any smell and the said fact goes against the case of prosecution. Further, the allegation of the prosecution is that on the next day night, A1 came to the house of deceased and cut his leg with MO.12, the cutting of leg would have surely caused bleeding, but no blood stains are reported at the store room of the deceased.
Further, as per the prosecution, the face of the accused was burnt
Page 19 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 by pouring kerosene. the resultant flame would have left some soot marks or caused blackening of wall of the store room but the prosecution has not found any such evidence in the store room. For that, prosecution has claimed that A1 and A2 made confession and they led to recovery of material objects which were used in commission of offence, but as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in custody of a police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. Here there was no element of discovery of any material object consequent to the confession. Further, MO.16 alleged bottle of kerosene never sent for FSL analysis to establish that the bottle contained of any kerosene or any finger prints of either of the accused on the bottle. Further as per the case of prosecution A1 and A2 used MO.12 knife to cut the leg of the deceased at the knee and amputated his leg from knee below. But whereas, the testimony of Pw.13/Doctor establishes that MO.12 could not be the knife used for the cutting of leg of deceased.
Thereby the said fact is also goes against the case of prosecution.
Page 20 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Further, the prosecution clearly failed to prove the crucial link of establishing the alleged fact of the alleged murder took place at the house of A2 and deceased, nor any event allegedly occurred at the house of A2 and the contention of cutting right leg of deceased below the knee. Further, though prosecution failed to establish the alleged production of alleged call data records of A1 and A2 and the deceased. But the customer application forms (CAF) are not supported by Sec.65-B Certificate, thereby Ex.P17 to Ex.P19 being inadmissible. Further, the prosecution also failed to establish the locations of said call data records hence, the evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. Further, though it is contended by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the application of last scene theory is not applicable to this case since even as per the testimony of Pw.8, the deceased slept on 16.12.2020 at home and on the next day, the deceased went away early as usual to attend his work.
Therefore, viewed in any angle can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove complete chain of circumstances to point out A1 and A2 responsible for the death of the deceased.
11.2 On this point, the learned defence counsel relied on the case of “Kabali @ Azhagarasan and another Vs. The State of Madras High
Page 21 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Court” wherein their Lordships has categorically observed that
i) Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; ii) Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; iii) The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; 11.3 Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, as the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, A1 and A2 are entitled for clear acquittal and prayed to acquit A1 and A2 from the clutches of the charges.
12.As per the prosecution evidence, Pw.1 is none other than the sister of Lw.1, who is wife of deceased. According to her testimony, she was informed by A2 about the missing of her husband from the house. On that they went to Morthad for search of whereabouts of the deceased. Later, A2 lodged a complaint with the police, Morthad.
Whereas in cross examination, it is admitted by Pw.1 that A2 telephoned her on the night of 17.12.2020 as the deceased was not returned home and she was worried. Further, it is elicited that the
Page 22 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 deceased is a painter and working in the surrounding villages.
Further, witness said that it was said to A2 that the deceased might have held up somewhere and will return in the next day morning.
Therefore, the testimony of Pw.1 has been remained to the extent of fact that the deceased was gone missing, on that A2 informed the same to her.
13.Whereas, the testimony of Pw.2 who is none other than the sister of the deceased has revealed that the deceased is having one daughter and one son by name Ayesha Siddiqua and Luqman.
Further, she was informed by the deceased over phone that there was illegal contact between A1 and A2 who is wife of the deceased, on that she advised to place the matter before village committee members of Morthad. She also attended before the village committee members along with deceased brother and placed the affair of A1 and A2 for which the village committee members admonished them and advised them to change their behaviour, but they never mend their behaviour and she went back to the house. Later, she received phone call that deceased was not found and missing since 2 days.
When she enquired with A2, as to why she has not given complaint to the police since the deceased was not found for 2 days, then A2
Page 23 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 went to Police Station and gave complaint to the police, after 2 days,
C.I. of Police, Mamada asked her to come to the Mamada Police
Station and she went there and she was enquired by showing the photographs by the C.I. of Police, belongs to her deceased brother.
Further, she was informed by the police that the body was found in the forest, area near Mamada, the body was appears to be decomposed in photos. She suspected that the deceased was killed by A1 and A2, on request of police, she and Pw.8 (daugher of deceased) went to Hyderabad for DNA test. While in the cross examination, she has denied all the formal questions putforth by the defence counsel.
14.Whereas, the testimony of Pw.3 Sarpanch of Burugupally
Village has revealed that on 25.12.2020 at 7.00 am, he received a phone call from and Lw.6/Rajanna from Pulimadugu from which to
Burugupally road works were carrying on and informed that some foul smell has been emanating from one bundle situated near by bushes and asked him to attend Pulimadugu village, accordingly, he proceeded where the bundle is situated and saw the bundle by opening the blanket rapped in a little bit and found one dead body, on that he went to Police station and lodged complaint/Ex.P1 stating
Page 24 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 somebody might have killed and thrown the dead body in bushes.
On the other side, the learned defence counsel reported cross examination nil.
15.Whereas, the testimony of Pw.4 has revealed that Mamada police came to their village and informed that there was a bundle wrapped with bed sheet/blanket in forest area of Burugupally, on that he along with Lw.8 and Lw.9 went to forest area. the said bundle was found in bushes and on the request of police, they lifted the bundle by bringing from bushes to road side. Further, on the request of the police, they opened the bundle, there they found one male person dead body and one right leg was not found and the said body was decomposed. Whereas on the other side, the learned defence counsel reported cross examination nil.
16.As per the testimony of Pw.5, outdoor photographer it has revealed that on 25.12.2020 at the request of police, he went to
Burugupally forest area and took photographs over the dead body lying on the road side and handed over six photographers under
Ex.P2 along with CD to police. On the other side, the learned defence counsel reported cross examination nil.
Page 25 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
17.As per the testimony of Pw.6, the deceased is his sister’s son and he was a painter and living in the same village. About 4 years ago, the deceased was not came to him continuously for 3 days as he used to attend him regularly, and from 19.12.2020, the deceased was not came to his house, after one week, he heard that one unknown dead body was found at Mamada in that connection
Inspector of police called him to come to Mamada, accordingly, he went to Mamada and found the dead body’s photo and identified the said dead body belongs to the deceased. Before the death, the deceased informed him that A2 is having illegal connection with A1 for that they placed the matter before muslim community and the committee members such as Lw12 and Pw.7 and himself advised A2 to live amicably with the deceased. Again the same matter came up
before them two months after the first meeting, again they advised
A1 to live amicably with the deceased but she never mend her behavior. Hence, he suspect A1 and A2 are responsible for the death of the deceased. Whereas, in the cross examination, it is elicited that the first complaint was given on 20.12.2020 and the case was registered as man missing. Further, witness has categorically admitted that he has not stated before police that A1 and A2 had
Page 26 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 illegal contact. With the said admission, the testimony of Pw.6 is not at all reliable on the allegation of illicit intimacy of A1 and A2.
18.Whereas, the testimony of Pw.7, who is Vide-President of Jama
Mosque of Morthad has revealed that both A1 and A2 had illicit contacts, the matter was placed before the Masjid Committee and advised them to live amicably but A2 never mend her behaviour but he was not present in the Committee at the time of counselling. The said counselling was taken place at 2 times. Later, he came to know about the missing of deceased. On the information of finding unknown dead body at Mamada village, he went there with Pw.5 and
Pw.6 and from the photographs shown to him, he identified the dead body belongs to the deceased. He suspects A2 and A1 are held responsible. In the cross examination, he denied the formal question putforth by the learned defence counsel. However, the testimony of Pw.7 in respect of alleged illicit intimacy between A1 and A2 not reliable since admittedly he has not a member in the
Masjid Committee before which alleged counselling for two times were taken place about the alleged illicit intimacy of A1 with A2.
However, the testimony of Pw.7 is remained unrebutted in respect of identity of the unknown dead body as that of deceased.
Page 27 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
19.As per the testimony of Pw.8, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased and A2, on 16.12.2020 at about 9 pm her deceased father came and they had dinner and slept. Her mother/A2, father/deceased and her sisters and brothers were all slept, on the next day morning they saw her father/deceased was not found and he went away early as usual to attend his work, but he did not return back, she does not know what happened. Her mother/A2 gave complaint to the police. On the other side, the learned defence counsel reported cross examination nil.
20.Further, it is evident from the testimony of Pw.9 on 20.12.2020 in his presence in the house of deceased, police conducted scene of offence panchanama and also prepared rough sketch, prepared the map of crime scene and later he had signed on
Ex.P3 CDF panchanama along with rough sketch. the said fact has been remained unchallenged even after cross examination.
21.Further, as per the testimony of Pw.10, on 25.12.2020, while he was going to Nirmal, police stopped him at Burgupally forest area. They found one dead body by the side of road and opened the bag and found the dead body in decomposed condition. In his
Page 28 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 presence, the police police prepared scene of offence panchanama at that place and he signed on Ex.P4 CDF. Further, police seized gunny bag and white bag and polythene cover, yellow colour shirt, blue colour pant, right leg was found cut. The said gunny bag was rapped with blanket and tied with ropes. MO.1 is blanket and MO.2 is threads, MO3 is white colour bag consisting the name of Gayatri
Sugars Limited, MO4 is one gunny bag with stains, MO5 is white colour bag with stains, MO6 is red and blue lined white colour towel,
MO7 is light yellow colour ready made shirt with stains, MO8 is light blue colour ready made cotton jeans, MO9 is red colour polythene cover with stains. Accordingly, the police prepared panchanama under Ex.P5 and he has signed on it. Whereas in the cross examination, the learned defence counsel put a suggestion as he was not present and no panchanama was conducted in his presence but the same was denied by the witness.
22.1 Whereas, the testimony of Pw.11 alleged panch for confession- cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and A2, as per the testimony of
Pw.11, he is alleged panch witness for confession panchanama of A1 and A2. According to him, on 06.01.2021, at about 9.00 am, he was called by the police to P.S. Mamada, accordingly, he went there and
Page 29 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 on request of police, he enquired A1. On his enquiry, A1 made confession about the commission of offence. Further, A1 confessed that after commission of death, the dead body of the deceased was kept in the store room and went away and in furtherance of his confession, the material objects used for committing murder were brought from the house of A1 i.e. MO.10 white hand kerchief, MO.11 eight (8) feet white color rope and MO.12 knife, MO13 Lenovo phone,
MO14 Api Auto bearing No.1716. After preparing said confession- cum-seizure panchanama at the house of deceased, he signed Ex.P6 confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 at his house. Further,
A1 confessed that they kept the wooden bar of the cot in the house of deceased and lead them to the house of deceased and brought the wooden cot from the store room of deceased house. MO.15 is the wooden bar of the cot. The police prepared confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 at the house of deceased under Ex.P7 and he has signed on it.
22.2 Then after at the request of the police, he enquired with A2, in his enquiry, A2 made confession and in furtherance of his confession, police seized MO.16 one kerosene bottle, MO17 Alka Tel
Cell Phone and MO18 Nokia Cell phone under confession-cum-
Page 30 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 seizure panchanama of A2 under Ex.P8 and he signed on it.
Further, on the same day, A1 and A2 led them to Burugupally forest area where the dead body was thrown away and shown the scene of offence. Thereafter, Police conducted panchanama under Ex.P9 and he along with another panch Lw20/Shaik Abdul Shoeb signed on it.
Whereas in the cross-examination, the learned counsel for accused has put formal questions by denying the testimony of Pw.11 has been remained unrebutted in respect of confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 under Ex.P6 at his house and confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A1 under Ex.P7 at the house of deceased and confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2 under Ex.P8 at the house of A2 and scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P9.
23.Pw.12 is the Doctor, according to him, he received requisition from SDPO, Nirmal on 30.12.2020 to examine Hyoid bone of unknown person of approximate age 40 to 45 years from P.S.
Mamada, accordingly he examined the same and issued report expert opinion, accordingly on examination of Hyoid bone, he found fracture left cornue of Hyoid bone with contusion of neck structures.
Accordingly he opined that fracture left cornue of Hyoid bone noted.
Accordingly he issued Ex.P10 expert opinion report. Whereas in his
Page 31 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 cross-examination, witness categorically admitted that in the report under Ex.P10 it is not mentioned as it is anti mortem or post mortem. Further witness says as he cannot say whether it is an accidental or homicidal death.
24.Pw.13 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. According to him, on 25.12.2020, he received requisition from the C.I. of Police, Soan to conduct autopsy over dead body of an unknown person. Accordingly, he conducted autopsy and found the following :
1. A male body in the process of decomposition fully blackish, dark in color, oily appearance, foul smelling.
2. Skull is exposed in-parts.
3. Hair is loosen in different areas.
4. Teeth visible, face tissues are in the process of decomposition.
5. Tongue swollen, black and seen between the jaws.
6. Right lower limb is cut below the knee and not found.
7. A pressed mark seen around the thigh above knee in a circular way.
8. Neck structures compressed on dissection
9. All the other organs and tissues are in the process of decomposition.
10.Penis is circumcised
Page 32 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
11.Femur bone is preserved for identification.
12.Viscera sent for analysis.
13.Neck structures sent for expert opinion.
25.Further witness said that after the expert opinion report, the cause of death has been given as is “due to injury over skull and fracture of Hyoid bone of neck”. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P11 PME report and Ex.P12 final opinion report. Further, in cross- examination, the Doctor has categorically admitted that the amputation of leg below the knee will be possible with big cutting equipment and it could not be possible with regular knife. Whereas as per the case of prosecution, a knife under MO.12 is used to cut the right leg of the deceased below knee. But as per the opinion of
Pw.13 Doctor, cutting the right leg of the deceased below the knee with knife is not at all possible. Therefore, the testimony of pw.1 goes against the case of prosecution.
26.Whereas Pw.14 is a Nodal Officer at Bharathi Airtel Service
Provider Ltd., at Hyderabad, according him, at the request of the
Addl. S.P. Nirmal, he has furnished the call details of cell phone number 9000667439, 9963711567, 9121836714 along with covering letter under Ex.P13 with Sec.65 B Certificate and call data
Page 33 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 records of above three phone numbers under Exs.P14 to P16 respectively. Further, Exs.P17 to P19 are the customer application forms of the above numbers respectively. Ex.P20 is Sec.65 B
Certificate. Whereas in the cross examination, witness categorically admitted that he has not certified the CAF form of Ex.P17 to Ex.P19 under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act and he has not given any information regarding the devices in which the data pertaining to
CDR’s was recorded.
27.1 Pw.15 is also Nodal Officer at Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
Network Provider, Hyderabad. According to him, on request from the
Addl. S.P. Nirmal, he furnished the call details of cell phone number 9390016574 for a period of 15.12.2020 to 20.12.2020. Accordingly, he furnished call data with cover letter enclosing Sec.65-B
Certificate, Ex.P21 is the covering letter, Ex.P22 is the CDR of 939001657, Ex.P23 is the CAF of 9390016574, Ex.P24 is Sec.65 B
Certificate.
27.2 Whereas in the cross examination, witness admitted that he has not given any information regarding the device in which the data pertaining to CDRs was recorded. Further, he admitted that they have not specified the location during the issuance of CDR’s of the
Page 34 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 relevant calls. Therefore, the testimony of Pw.14 and Pw.15 are no way helpful to the case of prosecution since the location during the period of CDRs are not specified.
28.Pw.16 is the then SI of Police, PS Morthad, according to him, on 20.12.2020 at about 1400 hours, he received complaint under
Ex.P25 from Lw1/Yasmin Begum(A2). Basing on the contents, they have registered a case in Cr.No.106/2020 U/h Man Missing under
Ex.P26 and took up investigation. Further, he recorded her statement of Lw.1/A2, later entrusted the case to Pw.17/HC.
29.As per the testimony of Pw.17/HC of Police Station, Armoor, after receiving the case file from Pw.16/SI of Police, Morthad, he visited the residence of Lw.1/A2 and examined and recorded her statement. Further, he secured the presence of Lw.15 and Pw.19 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the crime scene. Thereafter, he secured the presence of
Lw3/Naseema Begum & Pw2 and recorded their statements. Later, he entrusted the case file to Lw26/Pw.16/SI of Police, Morthad.
While in cross examination, witness admitted that Pw.2 never stated
before him that A1 and A2 had illegal intimacy and that they
reported to the Village committee. Further, witness admitted that
Page 35 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Pw.2 never stated before him that she had suspicion over A1 and A2 about the commission of offence.
30.Whereas the testimony of Pw.18, the then SI of Police,
Morthad has revealed that on 06.02.2021, he received the CD case file from PS Mamada from CCRD, Nizambad. Basing on the CD file letter, he altered the section of law from Man Missing to U/Sec.302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and submitted before the Hon’ble Court. Later, he handed over the CD case file to Lw30/Pw.21 for further investigation.
31.Further, as per the testimony of Pw.19, the then SI of Police,
Mamada, he received a complaint from Pw3, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.110/2020 U/Sec.302, 201 of IPC at P.S.
Mamada and issued FIR and took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statement of Pw3, later handed over the CD case file to
Pw.20 as the case is grievous in nature for further investigation.
32.1 The testimony of Pw.20/the then CI of Police, Soan has revealed that he took up the investigation from Pw.19 and visited the scene of offence situated at Burugupally outskirts and examined
Pw.3 but not recorded his statement as earlier he stated same
Page 36 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 version. Thereafter he recorded the statement of Lw.6, later he took the photographs of the crime scene with the help of Pw.5, later in the presence of mediators i.e., Pw.10 and Sayyed Shahid/Lw.18, drafted the details of the scene of offence and also seized 1. Blood stained earth 2) control earth 3) White colour Bag with stains consisting the name of “Gayatri Sugar Limited”, Kamareddy Unit.
Thereafter, he brought the dead body from the bushes and opened the blanket with the help of Pw.4, Lws.8 and 9, he found an unknown male dead body in that blanket, aged about 40 to 45 years which totally in decomposed state, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased before two mediators i.e., Pw.10 and Syed
Shahid Lw-18 and found that the deceased right leg was not found from knee to foot and red colour polythene cover was covered the knee of right leg and his face was covered with one towel, white colour bag & Gunny bag, the deceased worn light yellow colour ready made full shirt brand name is “Hollywood” and light blue colour ready made cotton jean pant and brand labels on the shirt and pant was torn and he is not having griddle and his penis found circumcision and also not found banian and drawer on his body.
Basing on the physical features, the deceased seems to be Muslim
Page 37 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 and face of the deceased was totally decomposed and tongue was came out and bitten between teeth, he has small beard and black hair. During inquest, he seized MO.s 1 to 8 before panchas.
Thereafter, he gave requisition to Pw.13/Doctor to visit the scene of offence and conduct autopsy over the dead body as the dead body as it is in decomposing state. Accordingly, Pw.1 conducted autopsy over the dead body and preserved the hyoid bone and viscera box of deceased, then after he collected FIR of Man-missing data and also collected FIR copy from Morthad PS in Cr.No.106/2020 under Man missing. He also collected suspected persons' mobile numbers and sent requisition to service providers through SP, Nirmal to furnish
CDR details. Accordingly, Pw.14 and 15 furnished CDRs. Basing on the clues collected in this case, the physical features of the dead body and missing person in Cr.No.106/2020 of PS Morthad is partially matching.
32.2 On 26.12.2020, he called the missing person's wife Yasmin
Begum (A2) to Mamada PS and shown the photos, cloths and articles of the deceased, which were seized by police but she did not identify, then after he called missing person’s elder sister Safia
Begum/Pw.2 and his maternal uncle Abdul Rasheed/Pw.6 to
Page 38 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Mamada PS and shown the photos, cloths and articles of the deceased, on that they have identified the dead body as Faizal by seeing them. Accordingly, he examined and recorded the statements of Pw.2 and Pw.6. Then after he forwarded hyoid bone of deceased to
CHC, Khanapur for analysis and report. As well as seized material objects to RFSL, Karimnagar. He also forwarded the femur bone of deceased for DNA finger printing comparison with Pw.2, who is sister of deceased and Pw.8 who is elder daughter of the deceased.
32.3 Then after he recorded the statements of Lw.12 and Pw.7.
Then after he also recorded the statement of Pw.8. While investigation was in progress, on 06.01.2021 on reliable information he along with staff rushed to house of A1 at Morthad village and apprehended him in the presence of mediators. In the presence of mediators, i.e. Lw.19, Pw-11 and Lw-20, A1 made confession and in furtherance of said confession, they have seized MO.s 10 to 14 from the possession of A1. Thereafter, A1 led them to scene of offence and shown the place where they have thrown the Cot leg (Stick). MO.15 and MO.16 were seized, which were used to burn face of the deceased, accordingly they have conducted scene of offence identification panchanam in the presence of Pw.11 and Lw20.
Page 39 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Subsequently, he recorded her confession in the presence of panchas in furtherance of her confession, they seized MO.17 and MO.18.
Further, A1 led them along with to Burgupally outskirts and shown the exact place where they dropped the dead body. After searching, they did not find the right leg of deceased, there they conducted scene of identification panchanama. Then after, A1 & A2 sent to judicial remand. Then after, he handed over the CD case file to S.P.
Nirmal with a request to transfer the same through CP, Nizamabad to PS Morthad for further investigation.
32.4 Whereas in the cross examination, Pw.20/CI of Police categorically admitted as there is no mention about illicit intimacy between A1 and A2, statement of Pws.1 and 2 recorded by PS
Morthad. Further, it is elicited that Pw.2 did not examine the neighbouring persons whose houses are beside the house of deceased and A2. Further, witness admitted that MO16 was not sent for FSL and he has not collected the finger prints on MO16.
Further, witness admitted that the tower code is mentioned in
Ex.P14 to Ex.P16 but there is no mention of particular location name. Further, witness said that he has not filed any documents to show that Pw.6 and Pw.7 belong to Masjid Committee of Morthad.
Page 40 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Further, witness admitted that there is no mention about the particular date of complaint given to Masjid committee about the illicit affair of A1 & A2.
33.The remaining witness in this case is Pw.21, the then C.I. of
Police, Bheemgal. According to him, he received the CD case file from Pw20 on 06.02.2021 for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, he received the FSL report under Ex.P29 on 18.1.2021 in which the expert opined that “item No.1,2 and 3 are analysed but no poisonous substance, no alcohol is found in them”.
Further, as per Ex.P30 FSL report, dated 15.4.2021, items 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 are analyzed and human blood is detected on item 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 11. Blood group of blood stains of items 1,2,4,5,7,8 and 11 is of “A” blood group. Blood group of blood stains on item 3,6 and 9 could not be determined. Blood is not detected on item 10 which is received as control for item No.9.
Further, he received DNA Report under Ex.P31 dated 12.05.2021 in which the expert opined that a male DNA profile is obtained from item No.3 is compared with the DNA profile obtained from item No.2.
The allelic pattern of item No.3 matches with the allelic pattern of item No.2. On the other side, almost no cross examination was done
Page 41 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 by the counsel for defence except posing one question by way of denial.
34.Whereas, the testimony of Pw.22/the then Inspector of Police,
Bheemgal has revealed that he received CD file from Pw.21 and after collecting all the material objects and evidences, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. There were nothing notable point elicited in cross examination by the learned defence counsel.
35.In view of the above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be said that the entire case of the prosecution has purely rest on circumstantial evidence. The allegation of the prosecution that A2 is wife of deceased and there is illicit relation between A1 and A2 and to continue their illicit relation, they have brutally murdered the deceased. Since the case purely rest on circumstantial evidence, we will discuss the circumstances alleged by the prosecution one by one.
36.The first circumstance of the prosecution relies on alleged intimacy between A2 i.e. wife of deceased and A1 and knowing the said fact, the deceased complained to the Masjid Committee by objecting to their affair. On this aspect, the prosecution has relied
Page 42 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 on the testimony of Pw.2, who is none other than the sister of the deceased. As per her testimony, 2 days after the deceased gone missing, she went to Morthad and asked A2 about not giving complaint to the police since 2 days and she suspected on A1 and A2 since A1 and A2 have illicit intimacy nor did their suspicion on A1 and A2. The fact of Pw.2 not have raised the complaint at earliest point brought on record by examining of Pw.2 in this aspect.
Further, Pw.6 who had recorded the statement of Pw.2 and Pw.17 who had again recorded statement of Pw.2 have clearly stated in their cross examination that Pw.2 had never stated before them that
A1 and A2 had illegal intimacy and that Pw.2 reported the same to the village committee. Further on this aspect, the prosecution has relied on the testimony of Pw.6, who deposed that the matter of affair of A1 and A2 was placed before the Masjid Community but whereas in cross examination, he categorically admitted that he has not stated before police that A1 and A2 had illegal contact. Further, according to him, he was in the village from 19.12.2020 to 26.12.2020 and he had gone to the Police station on 20.12.2020 to give the complaint over the missing of the deceased. But the prosecution has not explained why Pw.6 statement was not recorded
Page 43 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 in the first instance. If the contention of Pw.2 and Pw.6 is true about the alleged affair between A1 and A2 and regarding alleged complaint before the Masjid Committee but their silence by not raising any suspicion on 20.12.2020 nor till 6 days later i.e. on 26.12.2020 after identification of the dead body clearly indicates that their evidence is not at all reliable. Further, the another witness Pw.7 who speak about the affair clearly states that he was not present in the committee meeting in the Masjid. Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution about the alleged affair between A1 and A2 does not meet the standards of evidence of being firmly established or conclusive.
37.Further, the second circumstance putforth by the prosecution that A1 and A2 murdered the deceased at house of deceased and A2 at Morthad. According to the prosecution, the murder was committed on the intervening night of 16/17.12.2020 in the house in which A2, deceased, Pw.8, sisters of Pw.8 and brother of Pw.8 lived. the scene of offence sketch shows that the scene of offence was conducted on 20.12.2020 at the house of deceased and A2, and the said panchanama was conducted by Pw.16/SI of Police,
Morthad. On 20.12.2020, Pw.16/SI of Police, PS Morthad registered
Page 44 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 a crime vide Cr.No.106/2020 under the head “man missing” and issued FIR under Ex.P26 but there was no allegation of any offence, moreso, a murder at the house of deceased and A2. A perusal of
Ex.P3 scene of offence panchanama at the house of deceased shown that the house has been identified as the scene of offence even
before there was any suspicion or allegation of any murder, the
complaint was regarding a missing man, who had not returned home after leaving home for work and the dead body was discovered only on 26.12.2020. So, there is no basis to the police to conclude on 20.12.2020 that an offence had taken place in the house of deceased. Further, according to the prosecution, on the date of incident, the accused entered the house of deceased from the backside of the house, but on perusal of the sketch under Ex.P3 clearly shows that there is no entrance to the house from the backside. the only two entrances to the house are from the front and the house consists of only 5 rooms. Further, the alleged murder said to have been committed on the intervening night of 16/17.12.2020 and the dead body kept in the house till the early hours of 18.12.2020. As per allegation of the prosecution, the dead body of the deceased was kept in the store room for more than 24
Page 45 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 hours, if that be the truth, after 24 hours, it is natural that a body will starts decomposing and smelling and such a smell would have automatically permeated in the surrounding areas. The scene of offence is abutting to the house of Srinivasa Chary and Komati
Vinod and there were other inmates in the house, but suprisingly, no one noticed any smell. Further, as per the allegation of the prosecution on the next day night A1 came again to the house of deceased and cut the leg with MO.12, if that be the truth, the cutting of leg would have surely caused bleeding, but no bloodstains are recorded at the store room of the house of the deceased.
Further, the prosecution claims that the face of accused was burnt by pouring kerosene, if that be the truth, the resultant flame would have left some soot marks or caused blackening of wall of the store room, but the prosecution has not found any such evidence in the store room. Apart from that the prosecution claims the confession of
A2 led to recovery of MO.16, MO.18 and MO.19. But as per the
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, there was no element of discovery in the alleged confession and seizure. And the alleged confession does not reveal that MO’s.16 to 18 were discovered consequent to the confession of the accused and consequently
Page 46 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
MO’s.16 to 18 were discovered, thereby the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any element of discovery in the seizure of MO’s.16 to 19. Further, alleged bottle of kerosene was never sent for FSL analysis to establish that the bottle contained any traces of kerosene or any finger prints of either of the accused. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, the alleged confession of A1 is not credible to rely.
38.Further, the prosecution alleged that A1 and A2 used
MO.12/knife to cut the leg of the deceased at the knee and amputated his leg from the knee below. A perusal of cross examination of medical expert Pw.13/Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased establishes that the
MO.12 could not be the knife used for the cutting the leg of the deceased. Further, in the cross examination, he categorically admitted that the amputation of leg below the knee will be possible with big cutting equipment and not possible with a regular knife. On perusal of MO.12 is a regular knife and measuring 8 inches including the handle. Thereby the testimony of prosecution witness clearly failed to prove a crucial link of establishing that the murder took place in the house of A2 and the deceased, nor where they able
Page 47 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 to establish in all the above events as they alleged that the offence had occurred at the house of deceased and A2. Further the contention of prosecution that A1 and A2 having cut the leg of deceased with MO.12 fails to prove due to evidence of Pw.13/Doctor.
39.However, the prosecution has categorically established from the evidence of DNA Report under Ex.P31 dated 12.05.2021 that the
DNA of Pw.8 is matched with the dead body, thereby it can be said that the unknown dead body found in the forest of Burugupally
Village is belongs to the deceased, thereby with the corroboration of medical evidence of Pw.13/Doctor, it can be said that the death of the deceased is proved.
40.Apart from the above, the prosecution produced alleged call data records of A1, A2 and the deceased. These records being an electronic record cannot deemed to be a document unless supported by a certificate U/sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and such certificate should be issued in accordance with requirements specified U/sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the evidence on record, Pw.14 is Nodal Officer, who issued Exs.P16 to
P19 i.e. alleged customer application forms, Ex.P17 is the phone allegedly belongs to the deceased, Ex.P18 is the customer
Page 48 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 application form of the phone bearing SIM No.9963711567 seized from A2. Ex.P19 is the phone allegedly belong to the deceased.
Whereas, in the cross-examination, Pw.14 has categorically admitted that he has not certified Exs.P17 to P19 U/sec.65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, as such, they cannot be admitted as documents.
Being inadmissible, therefore, the prosecution has categorically failed to establish the ownership of phone bearing Nos.9000667439 allegedly belong to the deceased and Phone No.9963711567 allegedly being used by A2 and Phone No.9121836714 allegedly belong to A1.
Thereby Exs.P14 to P16 documents being inadmissible, lose their relevance as their evidence.
41.The other contention of the prosecution that the calls between
A1 and A2 as reflected by the CDRs shows that on the morning of 18.12.2020, A1 was found to be at Vishwanathpet of Nirmal district and it is near Mamada village and again at Kadthal village near
Gamjal toll plaza of Nirmal District but the prosecution failed to establish the distance between Kadthal and Vishwanathpet of
Nirmal district from the scene of offence. Hence, as the alleged presence of A1 at these places will not have any relevance unless the proximity of Kadthal or Vishwanathpet to the scene of offence is
Page 49 of 53 SC.No.227-2022 established. Further, the CDRs marked under Exs.P14 to P16 did not show the location of phones. Thereby, the contention of the prosecution is not based on any reliable evidence.
42.Further, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued for application of theory of last scene in the present case, but whereas as per the evidence on record, A2 was not the only person present with the deceased, on the intervening night of 16/17.12.2020.
Further, as per the testimony of Pw.2 on 16.12.2020 at about 9.00 pm, the deceased came and had dinner and they slept, thereby according to Pw.8, her mother/A2 her father/deceased, her sisters and brothers were all slept. Further, her evidence clearly shows that on the next day morning the deceased was not found and he went away early as usual to attend his works. Therefore, it can be said that the theory of last scene is no way applicable to the facts of the present case.
43.Therefore, under the above circumstances brought on record by the prosecution it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of A1 and A2 for the death of the deceased. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the charge
Page 50 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
U/sec.302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 consequently, A1 and
A2 are entitled for acquittal.
44.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences Under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The non-valuable case property i.e. MO’s. 1 to 18 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of August, 2025.
Sd/-
FAC: I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Pw.1:Mohammed Majaruddin(LW2)- Nil - Pw.2:Smt. Shaik Safiya(LW4) Pw.3:K. Gangaram(LW5) Pw.4:Athram Maruthi(LW7) Pw.5:E. Dixith (LW10) Pw.6:Abdul Rasheed(LW11) Pw.7:Abdul Aleem(LW13) Pw.8:Ayesha Siddiqua(LW14)
Page 51 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Pw.9:Mohammed Abdul Javeed(LW 16) Pw.10:J. Jalam Singh(LW17) Pw.11:Mohammed Habeeb(LW19) Pw.12:Dr. Vamshi (LW21) Pw.13:Dr. C. Venu Gopala Krishna(LW22) Pw.14:A. Sudheer Kumar (LW23) Pw.15:A. Jitender (LW24) Pw.16:M. Sampath Kumar (LW-26) Pw.17:T. Muthyam Rao (LW25) Pw.18:P. Suresh (LW27) Pw.19:K. Vinay (LW-28) Pw.20:L. Jeevan Reddy (LW-29) Pw.21:T. Sreenath Reddy (LW 30) Pw.22:A. Venkateswarlu (LW31)
Exhibits marked for Prosecution:-
Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Six Photographers along with CD Ex.P3: CDF Panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P4: CDF Ex.P5: Panchanama Ex.P6: Confession – cum – recovery panchanama of A1 Ex.P7: Confession – cum – recovery panchanama of A1 Ex.P8: Confession – cum – recovery panchanama of A2 Ex.P9: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10: Expert opinion report. Ex.P11: PME report Ex.P12: Final Opinion report
Page 52 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
Ex.P13: Covering letter Ex.P14: CDR of 9000667439 Ex.P15: CDR of 9963711567 Ex.P16: CDR of 9121836714 Ex.P17: CAF of 9000667439 Ex.P18: CAF of 9963711567 Ex.P19: CAF of 9121836714 Ex.P20: 65B certificate. Ex.P21: Covering letter Ex.P22: CDR of 9390016574 Ex.P23: CAF of 9390016574 Ex.P24: 65B certificate Ex.P25: Complaint Ex.P26: FIR Ex.P27: Section Alteration letter Ex.P28: FIR Ex.P29: FSL report dated: 18.01.2021 Ex.P30: FSL report dated: 15.04.2021 Ex.P31: DNA report dated: 12.05.2021
Exhibits marked for Defence - Nil-
MOs marked
MO1: Blanket MO2: Threads MO3: White colour bag MO4: One gunny bag with stains MO5: White colour bag with stains
Page 53 of 53 SC.No.227-2022
MO6: Red and blue lined white colour towel MO7: Light yellow MO8: Light blue colour ready made cotton jeans MO9: Red colour polythene cover with stains MO10: White hand kerchief MO11: 8 Feet white color robe MO12: One knife MO13: Lenovo phone MO14: Api Auto bearing No.1716 MO15: Wooden bar of cot MO16: One kerosene Bottle MO17: Alka Tel Cell phone MO18: Nokia Cell phone
Sd/-
FAC: I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.