Telangana High Court
Gaddam Subhash Reddy , Subbu , Sr … vs The State Of Telangana on 27 February, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1715 OF 2017 & 121 and 732 of 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1715 OF 2017
Between:
1. Mohd. Ahmed @ Fardeen @ Laddu, S/o Ameen
......Appellant/Accused No.3
Versus
The State of Telangana
.....Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27.02.2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No
_____________________
K. SURENDER, J
_____________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1715 OF 2017 & 121 and 732 of 2018
% 27.02.2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1715 OF 2017
1. Mohd. Ahmed @ Fardeen @ Laddu, S/o Ameen
......Appellant/Accused No.3
Versus
The State of Telangana
.....Respondent/Complainant
^Counsel for the appellants/
accused : Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel for accused No.1,
Mr. S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel
for accused No.2 and Sri. S M
Rafeo, learned counsel for accused
No.3.
^Counsel for the respondent/
complainant : Dodla Arun Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
for State
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2023) 11 SCC 255
2. AIR 2023 SC 2938
3. AIR 2011 SC 2769
4. (2020) 7 SCC 1
5. (1984) 4 SCC 116
6. (2008) 3 SCC 210
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1715 OF 2017 & 121 and 732 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
These appeals are filed by appellants/accused Nos.1, 2,
and 3, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 11.12.2014 in
S.C.No.136 of 2014, passed by the VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, questioning their conviction
and sentence under Sections 120-B, 302, and 380 of IPC.
2. Heard Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
accused No.1, Mr. S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for accused
No.2 and S M Rafeo, learned counsel for accused No.3 and Mr.
Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
appearing on behalf of respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of prosecution case are that, on
08.07.2012, at about 00.05 hours, PW1, who is husband of
Mrs. Jyothikala (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), lodged
a complaint in NTPC Police Station stating that, on 07.07.2012,
at about 01:45 pm, he left for his second shift of official duty in
NTPC and the deceased was alone in the house at that time.
While he was on duty, he made a phone call to deceased at
4
about 7:30 P.M., but there was no response from the deceased
to his call. Again, he made another call to the landline phone,
but there was no response from deceased to his second call. He
returned home at about 8:00 P.M, and found the deceased lying
dead on cot, in the bedroom. He also observed that a kerchief
was gagged into her mouth, and that her hands were tied with
an electric wire, and also found that gold pusthelatadu and two
gold rings were missing. PW1 suspected that some unknown
persons committed theft and killed his wife. He gave a report
(Ex. P-1) to the S.I. of Police, NTPC, PW-15, who registered a
case in Crime No.101/2012 for the offences under Sections
120-B, 302, and 380 of IPC, and issued express FIR/Ex.P-16.
4. Basing on the report of PW-1, PW-16, Inspector of Police,
took up the investigation from PW-15 and recorded the
statement of PW-1, and rushed to the scene of offence, and also
called for dog squad from Karimnagar. He had collected blood
stains on the floor and on door curtain of the bed room, with
cotton swabs from the scene, with the help of clues team. PW-
16 also seized the plastic electric wire (MO.19), saree (MO.17),
kerchief (MO.18), broken bangle pieces (MO.16), and one tester
(MO.20) from the scene of offence, and conducted scene of
offence Panchanama in the presence of PW-10 & LW-20. PW-16
also examined PWs.3, 4, & 6 and recorded their statements.
5
PW-16 also recorded the statement of PW-2 and LW-9, who are
respectively, the daughter and son-in-law of PW-1 and the
deceased. Thereafter, he completed inquest on the dead body of
deceased and sent the body for post mortem examination to
Government Area Hospital, Godhavarikhani.
5. PW-14 and Dr. Surya Rao (LW.27) conducted post mortem
on the dead body of the deceased, and preserved intestine, liver,
etc., for chemical analysis. Ex. P-14 is the post mortem report
and Ex. P-15 is the final report, and the cause of death as per
Doctor’s report, is due to asphyxia and shock, and it was opined
that the deceased died due to smothering and throttling.
6. It is further case of the prosecution that PW-16 has
procured call details of all network companies and verified the
call details with the help of tower IDs and calls made at PTS
NTPC on 07-07-2012, and observed that there were frequent
calls from mobile number 9000280882 to mobile numbers
8501930240 and 9951103666.
7. The further case of the prosecution is that, on
25.08.2012, at about 7:00 am, PW-16 apprehended A1 & A2 at
Goutham Nagar, NTPC, and interrogated them and recorded
their confession statement(s) in presence of PW-12 and LW-22.
6
8. It is alleged that at the instance of appellant, the Police
seized M.O.1 to ΜΟ.15, Μ.Ο.19, Μ.Ο.27, and Μ.O.28, at
Goutham Nagar and from appellant’s house at Ranapur.
9. PW-16 also collected the call data records among the
appellant and accused Nos.2 and 3. The prosecution agency
also collected CCTV footage and Compact Disc/Exs.P7 & P8
through PW-11 from NTPC.
10. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the following
circumstances, as projected by the prosecution to convict the
appellants:
1. The deceased was found dead on 07.07.2012, and death
was homicidal. Her jewellery was missing.
2. CCTV Footage, which was recovered and marked as
Exs.P7 and P8, shows the presence of accused No.1 near
the scene.
3. When DNA tests were conducted on the swabs collected
from the scene, it tallied with the DNA of accused No.2.
4. The accused were absconding. After the arrest,
confessions were recorded, pursuant to which, seizures
were effected, including jewellery of the deceased, from
accused Nos.1 to 3.
7
11. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for
appellants is that, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, the
main connecting link is CCTV footage. However, no 65(B)
certificate was filed along with the footage, as such, the said
CCTV footage cannot be looked into to infer that accused No.1
was found at the scene at the relevant time.
12. The second contention is that the DNA, which was
allegedly found at the scene, cannot be looked into, since there
is a delay of nearly one year before the tests were done. The
guidelines for collection and storage require that the samples be
sent immediately after the collection, and that the collection
should also be done with utmost care. However, though
samples were collected on 08.07.2012, they were produced
before the Magistrate on 28.07.2012, and sent to FSL on
29.11.2012, which was after collection of the blood samples of
accused No.2. The possibility of tampering with samples to
implicate the accused cannot be ruled out.
13. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the recovery
of the jewellery cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
8
Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 1.
14. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishad v. State of Maharashtra 2,
in support of his arguments that there cannot be a delay in
sending the samples for DNA testing, and when there is an
unexplained delay, the said test cannot be looked into. The
learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan 3, dealing
with circumstantial evidence, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court,
while dealing with the recovery and admissibility of confession
under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, held that a statement
which leads to discovery of fact would be admissible. However,
in the present case, it was argued that the portion that was
marked in the confession does not fall within the admissibility,
as required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
15. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit that the case is of circumstantial evidence, and
all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution would
1
(2023) 11 SCC 255
2
AIR 2023 SC 2938
3
AIR 2011 SC 2769
9
collectively indicate that appellants are the persons who had
perpetrated the crime.
1. CCTV Footage:
Exs.P7 and P8 are the compact disks which are filed by
the prosecution showing presence of accused No.1 near the
scene of offence. The said CCTV Footage was transferred on to
the compact disk and filed before the Court. The main source of
storage is the hard disk, which stores the recording of cameras.
However, the hard disk was not filed. Once the contents of
recording from the hard disk are transferred on to a compact
disk, it is incumbent on the person, who has provided the
disks, to give a certificate as required under Section 65(B)(4) of
the Indian Evidence Act, so that, the requirements as
contemplated under Section 65(B)(4) are met. In the absence of
such certification, the Court cannot look into the said CCTV
footage evidence.
16. The Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in
the latest judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal and others 4, held that, when the
primary evidence is not produced, producing of certificate under
Section 65(B)(4) of Indian Evidence Act, is mandatory to
4
(2020) 7 SCC 1
10consider secondary evidence. The prosecution relied heavily on
the CCTV footage to implicate accused No.1, apart from the
seizure that was effected at his instance. Insofar as CCTV
footage is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon.
17. The recovery aspects will be discussed in the later
paragraphs.
2. Collection of samples from the scene:
The case of the prosecution is that the blood stain
samples were collected by the Investigating Officer from the
scene of offence on 08.07.2012. The samples were cotton
swabs, which are six in number, and were secured separately in
six covers. The said samples were produced before the
concerned Court on 28.07.2012. Meanwhile, during the course
of their investigation, the Investigating Officer apprehended
accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.08.2012. After recording their
confessions and seizure statements, the blood sample of
accused No.2 was collected on 29.11.2012, and the same was
sent to FSL for DNA testing on 29.11.2012. The FSL
report/Ex.P38 was issued on 23.11.2013. It is not out of place
to mention that the FSL expert, who conducted testing, was not
examined by the prosecution before the trial Court.
11
18. There are guidelines in place for Investigating Officers,
which are to be followed during the course of collection and
preservation of samples at the scene of offence.
19. The relevant guideline for Investigating Officers of the
CFSL, issued by the Directorate of Forensic Sciences Services,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, reads as under:
[
“Procedure for collection and preservation of biological
evidence by Investigating Officer:
The dried blood stains which are found at the scene
in the form of spatters or stains have to be collected
by moistening the dry blood stains for 5-10 minutes
with distilled water. The stains have to be collected
with foam tipped swab or gauze piece and air dry the
swab. This pack has to be placed on proper envelop.
The samples must immediately transported to
concerned laboratory and it should not be any delay.
Further, precautions are also to be taken so as not to
contaminate the samples.”
20. The officer collecting the samples was not examined.
Investigating Officer speaks about collection of samples.
However, the samples that were collected on 08.07.2012, were
produced before the concerned Magistrate on 28.07.2012.
12
Further, the Investigating Officer has not stated the condition
under which the samples were stored or in whose custody the
samples were for a period of 20 days. Again, there is no proper
explanation regarding custody of the samples from 28.07.2012
till 29.11.2012. The Investigating Officer failed to explain as to
why the samples were not immediately sent to the FSL, in
accordance with the rules. There arises any amount of
suspicion regarding samples being sent by the Investigating
Officer only after the blood samples of accused No.2 were
collected on 29.11.2012. Furthermore, the test report is dated
23.11.2013, which is nearly one year after samples were sent.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishad v. State of
Maharashtra (2 supra), found that the unexplained delay in
sending the samples is fatal to the prosecution case. The
relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“61. In the present case, the delay in sending the
samples is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of
contamination and the concomitant prospect of
diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out.
On the need for expedition in ensuring that samples
when collected are sent to the concerned laboratory as
soon as possible, we may refer to “Guidelines for
collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene
DNA samples For Investigating Officers- Central Forensic
Science Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences
Services Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. of India” which
in particular reference to blood and semen, irrespective of
its form, i.e, liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter) records
the sample so taken “Must be submitted in the laboratory
without any delay.”
13
62. The document also lays emphasis on the ‘chain of
custody’ being maintained, Chain of custody implies that
right from the time of taking of the sample, to the time its
role in the investigation and processes subsequent, is
complete, each person handling said piece of evidence
must duly be acknowledged in the documentation, so as
to ensure that the integrity is uncompromised. It is
recommended that a document be duly maintained
cataloguing the custody. A chain of custody document in
other words is a document, “which should include name
or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each
person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dated
the items were collected or transferred, agency and case
number, victim’s or suspect’s name and the brief
description of the item.”
22. In a serious case of murder, the handling of samples,
their custody, and the samples being sent to the concerned
laboratory without delay, has to be clearly reflected in the
prosecution case. In the absence of any explanation regarding
the delay and the custody of the samples in proper form, there
arises any amount of doubt regarding correctness of the
prosecution version and also the report. The expert was not
examined. The expert would be the proper person to speak
about whether the samples, which were sent to the FSL nearly 2
months after collection, would be fit for conducting tests. No
reason is given as to why the expert was not examined. Though
under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the FSL report given by the
Assistant Director can be looked into, however, the provision
also gives powers to the Court to call for the expert to clear any
doubts. As already discussed, the reason for delay in sending
the samples and the manner in which the samples were
14
collected ought to have been explained by the prosecution by
examining the experts.
23. In view of the reasons discussed above, the DNA
report/Ex.P35 cannot be looked into to connect the accused
No.2 with the scene of offence.
3. Recoveries:
24. The other major circumstance relied on by the
prosecution are the recoveries that were effected at the instance
of accused Nos.1 to 3.
The following articles were seized from A1:
i. Gold pusthella thadu weighing 24 grams (PW-6 got it
weighed by PW-7); and
ii. Samsung cell phone with SIM card number 8501930240;The following articles were seized from A2:
i. Nalla pusala golusu weighing 24 grams;
ii. One gold ring with white stones weighing 3.6 grams;
iii. One gold ring with red stones weighing 2.4 grams;
iv. Gold locket weighing 5.9 grams; and
v. Samsung cell phone with SIM card number 9502148188;
vi. One Bajaj CT-100 motor cycle bearing no. AP-28-BD-
5065
(Items 1-4 were weighed by PW-7)
The following articles were seized from A3:
15i. One gold plain ring weighing 1.3 grams; and
ii. Bajaj motorcycle.
25. The confession of an accused is hit by Section 25 of
Indian Evidence Act. However, exceptions are made under
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of
confession. The admissibility is to the extent of a discovery of
new fact that comes to the knowledge of the Investigating
Officer during the investigation. For an admissible portion of
any confession to fall within Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act,
it must be directly connected to the knowledge of accused of a
fact, that was not previously known to the Investigating Officer
and must have been discovered at the instance of accused
pursuant to such confession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (3 supra), held as follows:
“25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is
important is discovery of the material object at the
disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone
would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the
offence was also committed by the accused. In fact,
thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a
close link between discovery of the material objects and
its use in the commission of the offence. What is
admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information
leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by
the prosecution.”
26. If the recovery memos were prepared at the police
station itself then the same would lose their sanctity as
held by this Court in Varun Chaudhary V. State of
Rajasthan².
16
27. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also
illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King
Emperor reproduced hereinbelow:
“… it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within
the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact
discovered embraces the place from which the object is
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this,
and the information given must relate distinctly to this
fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of
the object produced is not related to its discovery in the
setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by
a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed
in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of
a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads
to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the
house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife
is proved to have been used in the commission of the
offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the
statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’,
these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to
the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.”
The same observations were thereafter restated in
another judgment of this Court in Anter Singh v. State of
Rajasthan.
26. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra 5, held as follows:
“The following conditions must be fulfilled before a
case against an accused can be said to be fully
established on circumstantial evidence:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’
fully established,(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,5
(1984) 4 SCC 116
17(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was once
again discussed and summarised in Sattatiya v. State
of Maharashtra 6, in the following terms:
“10. It is settled law that an offence can be proved
not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial
evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can
draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts
and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible
with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the
circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is
drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
have to be shown to be closely connected with the
principal fact sought to be inferred from those
circumstances.”
27. In the confession of accused No.1, Ex.P10 was marked as
the admissible portion of accused No.1. The confession led to
the recovery of gold jewellery from accused No.1. Ex.P10 reads,
“the said gold pustela thadu was weighed and both of them are
24 grams, sealed in plastic cover and the panchas have signed
and pasted slips” (translated by me).
28. The said portion, which was marked as Ex.P10 during the
course of trial, cannot be said to be admissible under Section
27 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P10 narrates regarding weight of
the jewellery and also the manner in which they were sealed.
6
(2008) 3 SCC 210
18
However, the basic requirement of discovery at the instance of
the accused is not reflected in Ex.P10. In the absence of Ex.P10
not falling within the requirement of Section 27 of Evidence Act,
the same cannot be looked into, and the seizures that were
allegedly effected at the instance of accused No.1, cannot be
considered by the Court as an exception to be considered under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
29. Similarly, Ex.P11 is the admissible portion that was
marked insofar as accused No.2 is concerned. Ex.P11 reads, “1.
Nallapusalu Golusu (black beads) weighing 24 grams, 2. White
stone studded ring weighing 3.6 grams, 3. Red stone ring
weighing 2.4 grams, 4. Gold locket weighing 5.9 grams and all
the jewellery was placed in plastic cover” (translated by me). As
discussed above, Ex.P11 does not reflect that there was any
discovery of new fact during investigation. Ex.P11 cannot form
basis to infer that seizures were affected at the instance of
accused No.2.
30. Ex.P13 is the admissible portion that was marked, insofar
as accused No.3 is concerned. Ex.P13 reads, “we the panchas
have examined that the ring which is ordinary ring and it was
taken to Chandrashekar who is gold smith who examined it and
weighed which is 1.300 gms., valued at Rs.3,000/-. CBZ motor
19
cycle was also examined and it is Hero Honda Company bearing
No.AP29-L-5962 in yellow color, with chassis No.05H46C00491″
(translated by me). The said portion is inadmissible and does
not satisfy the requirement under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, to read the said statement against the appellant,
and for the Court to infer that a new fact was discovered or the
said ornaments were seized at the instance of accused No.3.
31. When the CCTV footage, DNA test, and the recoveries, for
the reasons discussed above, are eschewed from consideration,
there is absolutely no other evidence to link any of the
appellants to the crime.
32. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to
establish any circumstances by proving them beyond
reasonable doubt so as to form a complete chain pointing
towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellants.
33. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed, the
sentence and conviction imposed against the
appellants/accused in the judgment dated 11.12.2017, in
S.C.No.136 of 2014, passed by the VI Additional District and
Session Judge, Godavarikhani, is hereby set aside. Since the
20
appellants/accused are in jail, they shall be released
forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 27.02.2025
plp
Note: Registry is directed to dispatch
the order forthwith.
