[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Mohd Shareef vs The State Of Telangana on 1 May, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.328 and 348 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2019 was filed by A5 and A6, and
Criminal Appeal No.348 of 2019 was filed by A1 to A4.
2. Both the appeals are heard and disposed of by way of this
Common Judgment since the appellants are accused in S.C.No.290
of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
at Hyderabad.
3. P.W.1-Junaid Khan is the defacto complainant. He went to the
police station and informed the police around 1.15 p.m. about the
murderous assault on his brother, namely Nihal Khan, by the
accused, resulting in Nihal Khan’s (deceased) death.
4. According to the complaint, P.W.1 stated that he is a native of
Qazees village, Jaloon Zilla, Uttar Pradesh State, and that at about
11 years ago, he, along with his family and parents, came to
Hyderabad and settled in Chota Bazar, Golconda, Hyderabad. His
brothers are working as carpenters and also drive autos, eking out
2
a livelihood. One boy, Lakhan Singh (P.W.4), aged 14 years, a native
of Uttar Pradesh, is learning and working as a helper in carpentry
work. He is residing near Fateh Darwaza along with his mother. On
07.09.2013, P.W.4 took a small cycle on hire from A6, who has a
shop styled “Yaseen Cycle Taxi” at Chota Bazar.
5. According to P.W.4, the same cycle was returned to A6 on the
same day, but A6 claimed that P.W.4 had not returned the cycle. He
continuously demanded the cycle from P.W.4 and visited their
house. On 11.09.2013, at about 12.30 hours, while P.W.1, along
with his family members and P.W.4, were attending to their work at
their residence, A6, A4, A5, A1, and others came to their house,
started abusing them in filthy language, and threatened and
demanded the cycle. At that, they produced P.W.4 before them and
told them that they could enquire with him. Then A6, who was
holding a stick in his hand, beat P.W.1 on his head, due to which
P.W.1 received a bleeding injury on his head. Then, A6 warned,
saying, ‘AGAR POLICE KO REPORT KARE THO MAAR DALENGE,’
and tried to take P.W.4 with them, but P.W.1 and his family did not
allow them to take P.W.4 and raised objections. While so, the
3
deceased, Nihal Khan, immediately started the auto, and P.W.1,
along with his mother, P.W.3, started from the house to report the
matter to the police. The deceased was driving the auto, and when
they reached Sadath Nagar near Baquri function hall, Golconda,
A6, A5, A1, A4, and others, immediately holding knives/daggers
and sticks, stopped the auto and started beating the deceased.
When P.W.1 and his family resisted, A6 caught hold of the hair of
deceased, A1 stabbed the deceased on his chest, A4 and A5 stabbed
him on abdomen and chest with knives, whereas other persons
caused injuries on both his hands with knives. When the deceased
immediately got down from the auto to rescue himself and started
running, the accused chased him and caught hold of him within a
short distance, again beating him with deadly weapons. Then,
P.W.1 and others started shouting “Bachao Bachao”. Meanwhile,
P.W.2 came to their rescue, and on seeing them and the public
gathering, A6 and his followers ran away from the scene.
Immediately, P.W.2 took the deceased in the said auto bearing
No.AP 12U 8675 and went to Area Hospital, Golconda, for
treatment, but the deceased died while undergoing treatment within
half an hour. The said information was given to the police when
4
P.Ws.2 and 3 also accompanied P.W.1 to the police station. P.W.2 is
the brother of P.W.1, and P.W.3 is the mother of P.Ws.1 and 2. The
narration of P.W.1 was typed in English at the instance of
S.Brahmachary (L.W.23) (not examined), who was then the Sub-
Inspector of Police. After the complaint, P.W.1 was referred to the
hospital for treatment. P.W.1 was treated by P.W.8/Doctor, who
found a laceration of 1 inch x ½ inch x 1 inch depth on the head.
According to P.W.8, who issued Ex.P7/wound certificate, injuries
received by P.W.1 were simple in nature.
6. P.W.12/Inspector of Police then went to the Government
Hospital at Golconda and shifted the body to the Osmania General
Hospital. P.W.12 also went to the scene of offence and preserved the
scene. P.W.12 returned to the hospital and conducted an inquest
on the body of the deceased. From the Osmania General Hospital,
P.W.12 again went to the scene of offence, which is near Baquri
Function Hall, Sadathnagar, Golconda, and conducted a scene of
offence panchanama. The next day, i.e., on 12.09.2013, the dead
body was sent for the purpose of autopsy. Autopsy was conducted
by P.W.9, who found 15 injuries, which were blood injuries, cut
5
injuries,and chop wounds. According to P.W.9, the injuries were
possible with a weapon such as a knife.
7. The appellants were arrested by P.W.12 on 15.09.2013 from
the house of A1’s father-in-law. Confessions were recorded, and one
knife was also recovered at the instance of A1. Having concluded
the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the appellants
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, and 341 r/w
149 of IPC.
8. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/A1 to A6
and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of six months each for the offences under Sections 147 and 148 of
IPC. Further, A1 to A6 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
under Sections 302 r/w 149 of IPC. A6 was also sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the
offence under Section 324 of IPC and under Sections 324 r/w 149
of IPC. A1 to A6 were further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under
Sections 341 r/w 149 of IPC. Further, A1 was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence
6
under Section 25(1)(B) of the Indian Arms Act. However, the
learned Sessions Judge found all the appellants not guilty of the
offence under Section 307 of IPC.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would
submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses, and apart from
the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no other evidence against any
of the appellants. There is any amount of contradiction
amongP.Ws.1, 2, and 3, and further, they have developed their
version during the course of their examination in the Court. Though
no incident was narrated in the complaint to have taken place on
08.09.2013, 09.09.2013, and 10.09.2013, however, the witnesses
have deliberately improved their case to falsely implicate the
appellants. There is no independent witness who was examined by
the police, though the alleged murder took place on a busy road in
the afternoon when there would have been several persons on the
road. Learned counsel further argued that though specific overt
acts were attributed to some of the appellants in the complaint,
however, during the course ofthe trial, a general speaking allegation
was made about all the appellants stabbing the deceased. In view of
7
such discrepant evidence and also the delay in the complaint
reaching the Court, it can only be inferred that a false case has
been filed against A1 to A6. Learned counsel for the appellants
relied on the following judgments:
vii) MiddelaParvaiah V. State of A.P., rep., by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad 7
viii) Eknath Ganpat Aher and Ors. V. State of Maharashtra
and Ors8
ix) Suraj Pal V. State of U.P9
x) Tajiuddin V. State of Assam and others 10
1
2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 42 (SC)
2
2003 CRI.L.J. 914
3
2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 331
4
2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 300 (SC)
5
(2015) 16 SCC 193
6
2020 0 Supreme (Chh) 330
7
2016 (3) ALT(CRI.)(A.P) 373 (D.B.)
8
2010 AIR SCW 3103
9
AIR 1955 Supreme Court 419
8
10. The witnesses have given contradictory statements about the
incident. Instead of a narration, it is easier to follow when
tabulated. The said contradictions are extracted below.
Sl. Incident P.W.1 P.W.2 P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5 P.W.6 Ex.P5
No
.
1. 08.09.20 P.W.1 stated P.W.2 stated P.W.3 P.W.4 – – –
13 – that all the that on stated that stated
warning accused 08.09.2013, at about that he
incident persons, at at around three and a did not
10:00 AM, 10:00 AM, all half years go to the
came to his the accused back, at shop on
shop and came to their 11:00 AM, 08.09.20
enquired house and A6, along 13. That
about P.W.4, informed with five P.W.2
demanding them that others, visited
the return of P.W.4 had came to her his
the bicycle. neither paid house and house in
However, the rent nor enquired the
since P.W.4, returned the with P.W.1 evening
who is said bicycle. about the hours
employed at In response, whereabout and
his shop, was P.W.2 s of P.W.4 asked
on leave at informed the and him
the time, accused that demanded about
P.W.1 he was the cycle. the
informed unaware of The returnin
them of his whether accused g of the
absence and P.W.4 had gave a cycle to
sent them taken the warning A6.
away. The bicycle on and That
accused rent. Upon threatened P.W.2
insisted that hearing this, with dire said that
the bicycle be the accused consequenc he
returned by began es, and returned
P.W.1, as abusing then left the
P.W.4 was them in the place. cycle.
his employee. filthy
language,
and P.W.1
pacified the
situation. A6
claimed he
would kill if
he did not
get the cycle
back.
He also
stated that
the accused
10
(2022) 1 SCC 395
9
persons
came on
09.09.2013
and
10.09.2013.
In his cross-
examination,
P.W.2 did
not state
before the
police about
the accused
demanding
the cycle on
08.09.2013.
However, the However, in P.W.3 did In his
08.09.2013 his not state cross-
incident was statement before the examina
neither recorded police tion,
mentioned in under regarding P.W.4
the complaint Section 161 the did not
nor in his Cr.P.C., 08.09.2013 state
Section 164 P.W.2 not incident. before
Cr.P.C only She the
statements. described admitted police
the incident the same in that he
that her cross- was on
occurred on examinatio leave
08.09.2013 n and did
but also not go to
stated that the shop
P.W.4 was, on
in fact, 08.09.20
present at 13, and
their shop on he also
that day and did not
had a state
conversation before
with A6. the
police
P.W.2, in his about
cross- P.W.2
examination, visiting
stated that his
he did not house
inform the and
police that enquirin
Mouzam, g about
along with the
A6, came on cycle.
08.09.2013,
09.09.2013.
Proved The The
through Investigation Investigation
I.O Officer, in his Officer, in
(P.W.12) statements, his cross-
did not examination,
disclose stated that
10
anything P.W.2 stated
related to the before him
08.09.2013 as in Ex. D1
incident. (161 Cr.P.C.
statement).
The I.O. did
not
particularly
specify
anything
related to
P.W.2's
statements.
2. 11.09.20 P.W.1 stated P.W.2 stated P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5
13: that the that at stated that stated stated
accused around the accused that he that
About came to their 11:30 AM or tried to went to on
attempting
to take
shop and 12:00 noon, take P.W.4 the shop 11.09.
away P.W.4 attempted to all the and P.W.1 on 2013,
near catch hold of accused intervened 11.09.20 betwee
P.W.1's P.W.4, came to their and asked 13, and n
shop
demanding shop and to call the that all 11:00
the return of began police or the AM
the cycle. At abusing P.W.4's accused and
that point, them in mother. came to 12:00
P.W.1 filthy their noon,
intervened language. He shop he
and informed further and visited
the accused stated that demand the
that P.W.4's the accused ed to house-
father had attempted to return cum-
passed away take P.W.4 the shop
four months with them, cycle. of
earlier, and if but P.W.1 That P.W.1.
they had any intervened P.W.4 Durin
dispute and told told g that
regarding the them that them time,
cycle, they unless they that he A6,
could either called the had accom
speak to police or returned panied
P.W.4's spoke to the cycle by
mother or P.W.4's and paid four or
approach the mother, he the five
police. would not charges. others,
permit them approa
to take P.W.4 P.W.4 ched
into their did not P.W.1
custody. state and
anything deman
about ded
P.W.1 that
requesti P.W.4
ng the be
accused. hande
d over
to
them
in
conne
ction
11
with
the
return
of the
cycle.
The same P.W.2, in his P.W.3 P.W.4, In his
was not cross- stated that in his Sectio
mentioned in examination, she did not cross- n 161
the complaint stated that inform the examina Cr.P.C
given by he did not police tion, .
P.W.1. inform the about the stated statem
police about accused that he ent,
P.W.1 the accused trying to did not P.W.5
mentioned in trying to take take away state stated
his section away P.W.4 P.W.4 and before that
164 Cr.P.C and about the the when
statement. P.W.1 interventio police the
requesting n of P.W.1. that the accuse
P.W.1, in his the accused accused d
cross- to either call came on asked
examination, the police or 11.09.20 about
stated that P.W.4's 13 and the
he informed mother demand cycle,
police about before taking ed the P.W.1
the attempt P.W.4 into cycle, or told
to take away custody. that he them
the P.W.4. informed that
However, the they
P.W.2, in his accused had
Section 161 about alread
Cr.P.C. returnin y
statement, g the return
stated that cycle. ed the
on cycle
11.09.2013, to A6
at 12 noon, by
A6 and his paying
followers A1, the
A2, A3, A4, charge
and A5, who s.
are residents
of Golconda
Fort area,
came to their
shop. A6
started
abusing and
demanding
P.W.4 to
return the
cycle. Then,
P.W.1
requested
the accused
not to harass
or threaten.
Proved However, the - The The -
through Investigating investigatio investiga
I.O Officer stated n officer did tion
12
(P.W.12) that P.W.1 not discuss officer
did not P.W.3's did not
mention any statements. discuss
attempt by P.W.4's
the accused stateme
to take away nts
P.W.4, nor
did he state
that P.W.4's
father had
passed away
four months
prior.
3. Attack P.W.1 stated P.W.2 stated P.W.3 P.W.4 P.W.5 P.W.
on PW.1 that A6 lifted that A6 took stated that stated stated 8 is
and a stick and a stick and A6 took a that A6 that the
Intervent assaulted struck P.W.1 stick from got A6 docto
ion of him, due to on the head, their annoyed and r
Parents which he causing a carpentry , lifted a others who
and received a head injury. shop and stick, threat treat
sisters at head injury. The other hit P.W.1 and beat ened ed
P.W.1's The other accused on his P.W.1 on to kill P.W.
shop accused also assaulted head. P.W.1 his and 1's
assaulted P.W.1 with received head. took a head
him with their hands. bleeding P.W.1 stick injur
their fists all Upon injuries. received and y.
over his hearing the a beat Ex.P
body. Then commotion, bleeding P.W.1 7 is
his parents, the family injury, on the the
brothers, and members and all head. woun
sisters, who came out the That d
were present from the accused P.W.1 certif
at that time, house into were receive icate,
intervened. the shop. beating d a whic
him with head h
In his cross- their injury. state
examination, hands. s
P.W.1 stated that
that he the
informed the injuri
same to the es
police. are
simpl
e in
natu
re.
The same The Section P.W.3 P.W.4, No
was not 161 Cr.P.C. stated in in his omissi
mentioned in statement of her cross- cross- on.
the complaint P.W.2 states examinatio examina
that A6 hit n that she tion, P.W.5,
P.W.1 with a did not stated in his
stick and state before that he Sectio
shouted, the police did not n 161
"MAIN about A6 state Cr.P.C
TUJHE striking before .
MAAR P.W.1 on the statem
DALUNGA." the head. police ent,
All brothers about stated
13
and family A6 the
members striking same.
rushed to P.W.1 on
the the head
workshop with a
entrance. stick.
Proved The I.O. -
through stated that
I.O P.W.1 did not
(P.W.12) state that all
the accused
assaulted
him, upon
which his
parents and
sisters
intervened
and
separated
them.
11. The evidence of the witnesses about going to the Langerhouse
Police Station also is suspicious. Though P.Ws.1, 2, and 3 claim
that P.W.1, the deceased, and P.W.3 went to the Langerhouse Police
Station to complain about the appellants, on the ground of
jurisdiction, Langerhouse Police asked them to proceed to Golkonda
Police Station. P.W.3 further stated that they requested security,
but the Langerhouse Police did not provide any security. No
policeman was examined from the Langerhouse Police Station to
speak about the said incident. In fact, the version given by P.Ws.1
to 3 regarding their visit to the Langerhouse Police Station initially
was denied by the Investigating Officer. Even in the complaint
Ex.P1 that was filed, there is no mention about P.W.1, P.W.3, and
14
the deceased going to the Langerhouse Police Station. In
Ex.P1/complaint, P.W.1 stated that after the altercation that took
place at their premises around 12.30 p.m., P.W.1, P.W.3, and the
deceased, while going to Golkonda Police Station, were stopped and
attacked by the appellants. The entire version of P.Ws.1, 3, and the
deceased going to the Langerhouse Police Station is falsified and
cannot be accepted, when the varied statements of witnesses are
looked into.
12. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 had stated about A1 to A3 coming to the
Baquri Function Hall where they had attacked the deceased,
causing injuries on the stomach and other parts of the body.
Thereafter, A4 to A6 came on foot to the said place and attacked the
deceased. Though P.W.2 stated in his chief-examination that he had
seen the appellants attacking the deceased, however, in his cross-
examination he admitted that he did not state about witnessing the
appellants attacking the deceased. P.W.2 has stated in the Court
that he was an eyewitness to the incident, when it is admitted by
him in the cross-examination that he was not present when the
attack on the deceased had taken place.
15
13. The version of P.W.3 is also doubtful, since her version is
contradictory to what P.W.1 had stated about the manner in which
the deceased was attacked by the appellants.
14. The exact place of stabbing is also contrary to the evidence of
the witnesses. P.W.1 stated that the offence took place near Baquri
Function Hall. He admitted that he did not observe whether there
was a beauty parlour or stationery shop nearby. He also stated that
he cannot say how many persons gathered at the scene. P.W.2
admitted in his cross-examination that he did not say anything
about the exact place of the incident to the police. P.W.3 stated that
an auto-rickshaw stopped near a marriage hall at Chota Bazar
when the deceased was attacked. P.W.3 did not speak about Baquri
Function Hall specifically. The discrepancy gains significance since
P.W.12/investigating officer stated that he visited the scene near
Baquri Function Hall. However, P.W.12 did not examine any of the
shop owners or residents of the Baquri Function Hall area. No
rough sketch was drawn, as admitted by P.W.12, and further,
P.W.12 admitted that none of the photographs under Ex.P6, which
were filed in the Court,has pictures of either Baquri Function Hall
16
or Beauty fashion or Ladies Tailor, in front of which the alleged
incident had taken place. P.W.12 further admitted that none of the
witnesses stated that the incident occurred near Nawaz Stationery,
which was visible in Ex.P6 photograph. P.W.12 admitted as follows:
“P.W.1 did not state before me initially he had been to the PS
Langerhouse in auto rickshaw and thereafter he was told to
go to the police station Golconda either in the Ex.P1 or in his
statement. The P.W.1 did not state before me that they came
out from the auto rickshaw and witnessed the alleged
incident. The P.W.1 did not state before me as the other
accused used to sit in the shop of Junaid (A6) as such he
knew all of them. The P.W.1 did not state before me all the
accused attempted to take way P.W.4 from his shop and that
they told that his father expired four months back and we
would handover him after arrival of his mother or the police.
The P.W.1 did not state before me all the accused assaulted
him on which his parents, sisters, his intervened and
separated. The P.W.1 did not state before me that A1 to A3
attacked the deceased with knives.”
15. The identity of A1 to A6 by P.W.1 was also in question. P.W.1
stated that he knew all the appellants and that all of them used to
sit in the shop of A6. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.1
stated that on the date of the incident, he came to know about the
name of A1 as Mouzam. P.W.1 also stated that he knew the names
of the appellants prior to the incident since he heard them from the
locality people. P.W.1 stated that he knew A1 as Mouzam, and he
admitted that he did not state before the police that Mouzam
17
caused injuries to the deceased. Though P.W.3 claimed that she
knew the names of the appellants, on the date of incident, however,
she admitted in her cross-examination that she did not state about
all the appellants calling the names at the time of the incident. It is
highly improbable that all the six appellants called out their names,
and that during the said incident, P.W.3 came to know the names of
all six assailants, this cannot be believed.
16. P.W.12, who is the investigating officer, stated that none of the
witnesses informed him that A1, whose name was Shahnawaz, was
also called Mouzam. A1 entered the witness box and examined
himself. He stated that his name is Mohd. Mouzam, and he also
marked Ex.D3/SSC certificate of A1, Ex.D4/voter ID of A1,
Ex.D5/household card belonging to A1, in which his name was
shown as Mohd.Mouzam. Similarly, Ex.D6 is the Aadhar card of A1,
in which his name is shown as Mouzam. However, in the complaint
made to the police, his name as Mouzam is nowhere mentioned.
The name of Shahnawaz is stated, and during the course ofthe
investigation, the said Shahnawaz was identified as Mohd.Mouzam.
As already discussed, there are several discrepancies in the case of
18
the prosecution regarding the place of incident, the manner in
which the incident took place, and the overt acts attributed, which
are all discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Krishnegowda and
others v. State of Karnataka11, held as follows:
“The eyewitnesses have not mentioned the names of accused 7 to 13
in any of the FIR and subsequent addition of their names after 06-03-
91 clearly demonstrates that it was an afterthought, only to implicate
them.
25. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives
and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of independent
witnesses for the incident which took place on a public road in the
broad day light. Although there is no absolute rule that the evidence
of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of
independent witnesses, it would be trite in law to have independent
witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be
incredible and not trustworthy. The minor variations and
contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit
of doubt in favor of the accused but when the contradictions in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the
prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter
and in such cases accused gets the benefit of doubt.
25A. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness
of evidence on record. As said by Benthem, “witnesses are the eyes
and ears of justice”. In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of
these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and
improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion
that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the
accused.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lallu Manjhi and
another v. State of Jharkhand12, held as follows:
11
2017(2) ALD (Crl.) 42 (SC)
19“11. In the case at hand, we can neither place implicit reliance on
nor totally discard the testimony of Mannu (PW-9) as it can neither
be called wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Mannu is a witness
who could have been naturally present with his brother while
ploughing the field. However, we find his testimony to have been
substantially improved at the trial than what it was to begin with
when the First Information Report of the incident was lodged.
Though at the trial Mannu alleges all the 10 accused persons to
have dealt blows with their respective weapons on the body of his
brother Suphal Hansda, but that is certainly not correct. If 10
accused persons had dealt even one blow each, there would have
been a minimum of 10 injuries on the person of the deceased. It is
the specific case of Mannu that so far as the chest injuries (fracture
of ribs) are concerned, it was the result of the accused Gurua having
climbed upon the body of the deceased after he had fallen down and
then pressed him against the ground. As the fracture of ribs is not
accompanied by any apparent injury on the body, in all probability
such injuries were not caused by any weapon. The injuries could
have been caused either by pressing hard as alleged or even by
forcefully pushing the deceased during the course of any scuffle. The
deceased has suffered only two other injuries, which obviously were
not caused by three persons. So far as the assault on the deceased
is concerned, there is so much of chaff collected by Mannu (PW-9) in
his deposition that it becomes very difficult, almost impossible, to sift
the grains of truth from out of the mass of chaff of falsehood and
exaggerations.”
19. In D.Thamdoram v. Kandasamy and another 13, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
“14. The prosecution has been able to prove the injuries sustained
by the deceased. However, serious discrepancies arise from the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The place of incident and
the sequence of events are not proved. The weapon recovered could
not be linked to the incident. The recovery itself is not proved. There
is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which is in addition to the
lack of genuineness of the FIR document itself. The possibility of
subsequent material alterations cannot be ruled out. The defence
examined one independent witness who deposed that the rod was
12
2003 CRI.L.J 914
13
2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 300 (SC)
20in the hands of PW2 who accidentally struck the deceased while he
intended the same on respondent No.1. It appears from the chain of
events and previous enmity between the parties that there occurred
a scuffle which grew hot and led to an injury which resulted into the
death. However, it is not correct to impute the culpability on the
accused when various inconsistencies occur in the evidences which
are fatal to the case of the prosecution.”
20. In Pappu alias Gulshan v. State of Haryana14, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
“15. When we perused Ext. PH/2, the FIR registered at the instance
of PW 6 as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, PW
6 was not able to refer to the names of the appellant. He has only
given the description as to the assailants who are stated to have
visited the barber shop of PW 7. Even in his oral evidence, and in
fact in the FIR it is also recorded that PW 6 stated that he would be
able to identify the assailants if they were produced before him.
However, no test identification parade was held to identify the
appellant. With that, when we examine the deposition of PW 6
before the court, again we do not find any specific statement to the
effect that he knew the appellant well before and that he identified
them prior to the date when he gave his evidence before the Court.
In the Court he identified the appellant as the person by referring to
his name and that he was the boy who was driving the scooter on
the day of occurrence.
16. PW 6 made a categorical statement that he did not know the
appellant beforehand, that he did not even know the assailant who
fired at the deceased, though he would state that the said boy was
in the age group of 25-30 years and his height was between 5′8″ to
5′9″ and was sporting a beard and was a person of stout physique.
With that slender evidence, it is highly suspicious, as to whether at
all the appellant was the assailant along with any other person.”
21. In Middela Parvaiah v. State of A.P15, the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court held as follows:
14
(2015) 16 SCC 193
21“14. Reverting to the facts of the case, in the light of all the
circumstances stated supra, the presence of PW3 at the time of
occurrence appears to be highly doubtful. It is obvious that when the
statement of PW3 was recorded at the time of inquest he did not
state that he witnessed the incident and that he is an eye-witness to
the occurrence. Had he stated so, the contents of the Inquest report
would have been otherwise. Therefore, the later prosecution version
that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence is implausible and far-
fetched. No explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution for the
corrections in the time mentioned in Exhibit P1, report, and Exhibit
P7, FIR, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution, having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case. The record makes it
manifest that the crime was registered after deliberations by
implanting PW3 and another as eye witnesses and that the material
documents forming part of the case record were manipulated to
show that there is no delay in either lodging the report or registering
the crime and that the investigation commenced after the registration
of the crime. Suffice to say that the prosecution version that PW3 is
an eyewitness to the incident does not inspire confidence and the
circumstances brought about from the material on record cast a
solemn and reasonable doubt about the presence of PW3 and LW4,
M. Sailu, [who was not examined] at the scene at the time of
occurrence. It may also be necessary to state that the FSL Report,
Exhibit P9, would show that no blood is detected on MO5, Axe, said
to have been recovered pursuant to the recovery confession made by
the accused.”
22. On the facts of the case, as pointed out, the discrepancies in
the narration of the eyewitnesses, the prosecution failing to fix the
exact location where the incident took place, A1 being named as
Shahnawaz,and also theother discrepancies that are discussed,
would go to the root of the case, making the version of the witnesses
doubtful.
15
2016(3) ALT (Crl.) (A.P) 373 (D.B)
22
23. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.290 of
2014 dated 08.04.2019 is set aside, and the appellants are
acquitted. Since the appellants are in jail, they are directed to be
released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.
24. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 01.05.2025
kvs
23
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.328 and 348 of 2019
Date: 01.05.2025
kvs
24
[ad_2]
Source link