Telangana High Court
Syed Mastan, Secbad vs P.P., Hyd on 18 December, 2023
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.461 of 2014
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.318 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per. Hon'ble Smt Justice P.Sree Sudha)
These two criminal appeals are being disposed of by
this common judgment since Crl.A.No.318 of 2015 filed by
A-1 and Crl.A.No.461 of 2014 filed by A-2 are directed
against the very same judgment of the learned III-Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.602 of
2010, dated 25.03.2014, whereby A-1 was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. and A-2 was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for
a period of three months each for the said offences. A-1 and
A-2 further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
2 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of two months each, for the
offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. It is directed that the sentences imposed against them
shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
27.06.2009 at 9.00 P.M, one Dharani Ashok Kumar (P.W.1)
lodged a written complaint (Ex.P1) before the Sub Inspector
of Police, Chilkalaguda Police Station (P.W.9), stating that
the marriage of his elder sister by name K.Saraswathi
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was solemnized
with one Mrutyunja Rao (P.W.2) about 25 years back and
they were blessed with two children. On 27.06.2009 at about
6.00 P.M. when he was in the shop, he received a telephonic
message stating that somebody killed his sister in her house
and then he rushed to her house at Padmaraonagar and
found his sister murdered by some unknown persons on the
3 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
1st floor of the house by causing severe stab injury. Basing
on the said complaint, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime No.
408 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 read
with Section 34 of I.P.C. Subsequently P.W.10-Inspector of
Police, Chilkalaguda Police Station took up investigation.
During the course of investigation, he examined P.W.1 and
recorded his statement, visited the scene of offence and
conducted scene of offence observation-cum-seizure
panchanama in the presence of mediators P.W.6 and L.W.8,
drafted rough sketch and got photographed the scene of
offence and seized one pair of footwear and spectacles from
the scene of offence and thereafter held inquest over the
dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.8 and
L.W.10. Subsequently, P.W.4-Doctor, who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the
death was due to stab injury on chest. Thereafter, P.W.10
arrested A-1 and A-2 on 14.10.2009 at 11.15 P.M. during
vehicle checking near Chilkalaguda cross roads, and on
4 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed the
commission of offence and their confessional statements
were recorded in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.12 and
recovered gold bangles - 4 in number, gold ear-tops - 2 pairs
and gold chain - 2 in number from the possession of A-1 and
seized Hero Honda Glamour motorcycle from the possession
of A-2 under cover of seizure panchanama and also
recovered knife, hand glouses and empty jewellery boxes,
which were used in the commission of offence under a cover
of seizure panchanama before the mediators. Thereafter,
P.W.10 seized one Sansui colour TV, VCD player, Music
system and one Bajaj Chetak from the house of A-1 under a
cover of seizure report in the presence of same mediators.
On requisition of P.W.10, P.W.3-Magistrate conducted Test
Identification Parade on 07.11.2009 at Central Prison,
Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, wherein P.W.2 identified both
the accused, while L.W.6 identified A-1 only. Thereafter,
P.W.10, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet
5 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. The learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad, has framed the charges under Sections
302 of I.P.C. against A-2 and 302 read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. against A-1 and also 392 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
against both the accused and that the accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charges
against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 10, got marked
Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 16. On behalf of the accused, no
witness was examined, but Ex.D1 was marked.
5. The learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, taking into consideration the oral and documentary
evidence, found A-2 guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and A-1 under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of I.P.C. and also found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of
6 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as
stated supra.
6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
present appeals have been filed by A-1 and A-2.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
A-1 submitted that that there is absolutely no eyewitness to
the incident and the circumstantial evidence relied upon by
the prosecution do not form a chain of events to connect the
accused with the commission of crime. It is further
submitted that the learned Judge erred in relying upon the
alleged evidence of P.W.2, who had identified the accused in
the Test Identification Parade, which was held five months
after the incident. It is further submitted that the learned
Judge failed to see that admittedly at the time of incident,
P.W.2 was at his Kirana shop and as such there is no
possibility for P.W.2 to see the accused and identified him in
Test Identification Parade. P.W.2 further admitted that
photos of accused were published in the newspaper and
7 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
Media and on 16.10.2009 the accused were shown to him and
subsequently on 07.11.2009 he identified the accused and as
such his identification has no evidentiary value. It is further
submitted that learned Judge failed to see that in Ex.P1, there
is no mention about the missing of jewels or its description
and no identification parade was held with regard to the
articles which is mandatory as per Rule 35 of Criminal Rules
of Practice. It is further submitted that mere recovery of
jewels at the instance of A-1 cannot connect him with the
commission of offence of murder and that the incident took
place on 27.06.2009 and recovery of jewels was on 14.10.2009
and thus the said recovery after four months of the incident
does not connect A-1 with the commission of offence of
murder. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant/A-2 is
liable to be acquitted for the offence with which he was
charged.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant/A2 submitted that
the alleged confessional statements made by the accused
8 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
before police is not admissible in evidence and as such,
conviction of the accused based on such confession is bad. It
is further submitted that the learned Judge erred in placing
reliance on the highly discrepant testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3.
The learned Judge also erred in relying on the proceedings of
the Test Identification Parade in identifying the accused,
which is stage-managed. It is further submitted that since
there is lack of linking evidence and since the entire case was
based on the circumstantial evidence and confessional
statements made by the accused, the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused and
therefore, the appellant/A-2 deserves to be acquitted by this
Court.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, contended that there is sufficient material to show that
the appellants/A1 and A2 were responsible for the
commission of offence and, therefore, the conviction and
9 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
sentence passed by the trial Court is justified and it does not
warrant any interference by this Court.
10. Now the point that arises for consideration is - whether
the prosecution could establish the charges framed against
the appellants-A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?
11. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased, who said to have
lodged Ex.P1-report before police. P.W.2 is the husband of
the deceased. P.W.3 is the learned Magistrate, who
conducted Test Identification Parade. P.W.4 is the Doctor,
who conducted post mortem examination over the dead
body of the deceased and issued Ex.P4-P.M.E. report. P.W.5
is the son of P.W.2 and deceased. P.W.6 is a panch witness
for Ex.P5-Scene of observation-cum-sizure Panchanama and
recovery of M.Os.4 and 5. P.W.7 is the panch witness for
Ex.P7-Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-1. P.W.8 is
the panch witness for Inquest panchanama. P.W.9 is the Sub
Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station, who
registered Ex.P1-complaint given by P.W.1. P.W.10 is the
10 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
Inspector of police, Chilkalguda Police Station, who
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the
accused.
12. There is no direct evidence to substantiate the case of
prosecution. However, the entire case solely rests upon
circumstantial evidence. In a case of this nature, the chain of
circumstances has to be examined so as to connect the
accused with the commission of offence beyond all
reasonable doubt.
13. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, stated in his cross-
examination that he went to the house of P.W.2 within one
hour after receiving phone call and by the time he reached
there, police present at the spot and the police enquired him.
He does not remember whether police enquired P.W.2 in his
presence. He along with his relatives went to the police
station and presented Ex.P1-complaint and the police did not
ask him with regard to the contents of Ex.P1. He further
stated that he has not noticed P.W.2 before going to police
11 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
station or even before giving complaint to the police, he did
not ask P.W.2 whether he has given any complaint to police.
He further stated that he did not enquire anyone with regard
to missing of valuables before lodging complaint. He further
stated that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 with regard to
missing of valuables.
14. P.W.2, the husband of the deceased, stated in his
evidence that he was running a kirana shop and daily his
deceased wife comes to the shop at about 3.00 P.M. and then
he goes to his house for having lunch and after taking rest
for some time he will come back to the shop at about 5.00
P.M. He further stated that on 27.06.2009 he opened his
kirana shop at about 9.00 A.M., and when his wife did not
come to the shop to relieve him by 3.00 P.M., he telephoned
to his residence, but there was no response and then he sent
his worker Lakshman (L.W.5) to his house asking him to
make a call through his wife and even after half-an-hour he
has not received any telephonic call from his house. He
12 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
further stated that while he was proceeding to his house, on
the way his worker met him and told that one woman was
lying in the verandah of his house and a wooden plank was
found on her body and then they went to his house on his
scooter and found his wife lying on supine position and a
wooden plank on her body and that he removed the wooden
plank and found his wife dead. He further stated that the
clothes in the almirah were thrown on the ground and the
bedroom of his son (P.W.5) was opened and that he noticed
missing of cash Rs.1,75,000/-, gold bangles-4 in number, two
gold chains and two pairs of gold ear-rings from the house.
He further stated that about five or six days prior to the
incident, when he and his wife were in the house in the
afternoon, he saw a person in the verandah near grill of his
house and when they asked the said person, he replied that
he came to the house to enquire whether any shop shutter is
vacant for rent and that when his wife warned him, he got
down and went away. Later, he also saw another person
13 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
who went along with the said person who came to the 1st
floor of the house. The person who came to the 1st floor of
the house stood at the grill was wearing glasses and another
person who stood in front of the house was tall and that he
can identify the said two persons. In the cross-examination,
P.W.2 stated that he went to the police station at about 9.00
P.M. on that day and by the time he went to the police
station, P.W.1 was already there. He lodged a written report
before police and he does not remember as to whether he has
informed P.W.1 with regard to missing of valuables from his
house. He further stated that he has not informed to police
about the descriptive particulars and weight of gold
ornaments and police never called him to identify the gold
ornaments and that no special identifying marks were
present on M.Os.1 to 3 to show that it belonged to them. He
does not remember whether the accused were shown by the
police in Print media as well as in Television immediately
after their arrest. He admitted that Saakshi Telugu daily
14 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
newspaper dated 16.10.2009 contain photographs of his
deceased wife and A-1 and A-2. He stated that on 07.11.2009
he has identified A-1 and A-2 in the Test Identification
Parade held by Magistrate at Chanchalguda Jail, Hyderabad.
He further stated that his wife used to wear Mangalasuthram
as well as gold bangles and finger ring, but he has not
observed the same on the dead body of his wife. He further
stated that he was present at the time of conducting inquest
over the dead body of his deceased wife and when he asked
the police about Mangalasuthram of his wife, police gave the
same to him.
15. P.W.3 is the Magistrate who conducted Test
Identification Parade of the accused on 07.11.2009 at about
3.30 P.M. at Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. He
stated that P.W.2, husband of the deceased, identified A-1
and A-2 and L.W.6 Abdul Yousuf identified A-1 only. L.W.4
Satishkumar, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, was
absent for Test Identification Parade. Ex.P3 is the Test
15 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
Identification Parade proceedings. In the cross-examination,
P.W.3 stated that exact place of conducting the Test
Identification Parade was not mentioned in Ex.P3. He
admitted that in Ex.P3-T.I. Parade proceedings, it was not
mentioned that the witnesses were kept aside from the
suspected persons till they were asked to come to the place
of T.I Parade. He also admitted that in Ex.P3, it was not
mentioned that he has taken the signatures of the suspects
and non-suspects. He denied the suggestion that he has not
conducted the T.I Parade proceedings as per rules.
16. P.W.4-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead
body of the deceased on 28.06.2009, stated that the cause of
death of the deceased was due to stab injury on chest and
that he issued Ex.P4--P.M.E. report.
17. P.W.5, who is the son of P.W.2 and deceased, stated in
his evidence that on 27.06.2009 while he was in his office, he
received a phone call at about 6.00 P.M. from one of his
relatives informing him that his mother is not well and that
16 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
he went to his house at about 7.00 P.M. and found his
mother died. He further stated that P.W.2 told him that
somebody took away cash of Rs.1,75,000/- and gold
ornaments weighing about 9 tolas and killed his mother.
18. P.W.6 is a panch witness for Ex.P5-Scene of
observation-cum-seizure Panchanama and recovery of
M.Os.4 and 5 and he stated that he signed on the said
panchanama. He further stated that articles like M.Os.4 and
5 are available in the market and police did not prepare
Ex.P6-rough sketch in his presence.
19. P.W.7 is a panch witness for Ex.P7-Confession-cum-
seizure panchanama of A-1 and he stated that A-1 and A-2
confessed that they killed a lady at Chilkalaguda in her
house and took away gold ornaments. He further stated that
police seized four gold bangles, two gold chains and two
pairs of ear-rings from the possession of A-1 and also seized
one knife, one empty jewellery box and hand gloves at the
instance of the accused at Narapally and thereafter at the
17 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
house of A-1 at Warasiguda, police seized one Television,
one VCD player along with Music system, one Bajaj Chetak
Scooter. In his cross-examination, he stated that police did
not weigh the gold ornaments in his presence. He further
stated that M.Os.7 to 10 were kept in a plastic cover by the
police and it was not sealed and no chit was pasted to that
plastic cover.
20. P.W.8 is a panch for Ex.P9-Inquest panchanama and he
stated in his evidence that he acted as one of the panch
witnesses for the inquest held over the dead body of the
deceased and they opined that the deceased died due to
injuries.
21. P.W.9 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda
Police Station, who registered Ex.P1-complaint given by
P.W.1. In the cross-examination, he admitted that G.D. entry
is kept blank in column No.3 © in Ex.P12-FIR. He stated that
after going through the contents of Ex.P1, he felt that there
was delay in lodging complaint, but he did not ask P.W.1
18 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
with regard to the delay. He admitted that in Column No.8
of Ex.P12, it was mentioned as 'No delay'. He further
admitted that the FIR has reached the Court on 28.06.2009 at
3.30 A.M.
22. P.W.10 is the Inspector of police, Chilkalguda Police
Station, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet
against the accused. He stated that while he along with his
staff performing vehicle checking near Chilakalaguda cross
roads, he apprehended A-1 and A-2 on 14.10.2009 at 11.15
A.M when they were travelling on Hero Honda Glamour
motor bike along with stolen gold ornaments. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he couldn't say under what
provision of law, he was checking the vehicles on 14.10.2009.
Ex.P1 does not reflect about the theft of cash or gold
ornaments. He further stated that he does not know whether
the incident was telecasted on 27.06.2009 at 6.00 P.M. in all
the news channels in Hyderabad. He further stated that he
did not mention about the presence of any gold ornaments
19 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
on the dead body of the deceased including Mangala
Suthram. He admitted that P.Ws.2 and 5 were examined by
him at their house. He further admitted that in the
confessional statements of A-1 and A-2, the signatures of
mediators were found at two places in the last page and he
did not weigh the gold ornaments at the time of drafting
confession. He stated that he did not mention the
descriptive particulars of gold ornaments in the confessional
statement of A-1 under Ex.A8.
23. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellants/accused is that Test Identification Parade was not
conducted by P.W.3-Magistrate according to Criminal Rules
of Practice. In fact, as per the case of prosecution, after
receiving the complaint from P.W.1, no investigation was
done by the investigating authorities till they found A-1 and
A-2 during vehicle check on 14.10.2009. Learned Counsel
further contented that as per Ex.P1, the deceased was killed
20 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
on 27.06.2009 and A-1 and A-2 were found with jewellery on
14.10.2009 i.e., nearly after four months.
24. P.W.2, husband of the deceased, stated in his evidence
that he used to open his kirana shop at about 9.00 A.M and
his deceased wife will come to the shop at 3.00 P.M. and then
he will go to his house for having lunch and will return to
the shop at about 5.00 P.M. This clearly shows that P.W.2
will sit in the shop from 9.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. and his
deceased wife will sit in the shop from 3.00 P.M. to 5.00 P.M.
He further stated that prior to the incident, when he along
with his deceased wife was in the house in the afternoon
hours, they saw one person in the verandah near grill at the
first floor of his house and on enquiry he replied that he
came to enquire whether any shop is vacant for rent, which
is contrary to his earlier version. He also stated that he also
saw another person who went along with the first person
and that the first person was wearing glasses and the second
person was tall. Except the said details, he has not given any
21 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
other descriptive particulars of the accused. When P.W.3-
Magistrate recorded the statement of P.W.2, he improved his
version and stated that the first person was aged about 55
years and another was aged about 26 years. He further
stated that one person was black in colour and another
person was of fair complexion. Thus, it is clear that there is
clear variance in the descriptive particulars given by P.W.2
in his chief-examination and also in the statement before
P.W.3-Magistrate, who conducted Test Identification Parade.
Test Identification Parade was conducted on 07.11.2009 at
about 3.30 P.M. nearly 4 ½ months after the date of offence.
Moreover, P.W.2 clearly admitted that he has seen the news
item under Ex.D1 in which photographs of his deceased
wife, A-1 and A-2 were published.
25. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon a
decision of the Supreme Court in Ravi @ Ravichandran vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police 1, wherein it was
2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 108 (SC)
22 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
held that Test Identification Parade was required to be held
as early as possible so as to exclude the possibility of the
accused being identified either at the police station or at
some other place by the concerned witnesses or with
reference to the photographs published in the newspaper.
26. Admittedly, in this case, there is a delay in conducting
Test Identification Parade. There is lot of variance in the
descriptive particulars of the accused given by P.W.2. It is
clear from the cross-examination of P.W.3-Magistrate that he
has not taken all the precautions as per the provisions of
Criminal Rules of Practice while conducting Test
Identification Parade. A complete procedure needs to be
followed for holding a Test Identification Parade. Therefore,
the crucial evidence of the prosecution i.e., Test Identification
Parade conducted by P.W.3 cannot be relied upon for basing
conviction against the accused.
27. In the charge sheet, P.W.10-Inspector of Police stated
that when the accused entered into the house of the
23 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
deceased, the brother-in-law of the deceased (L.W.4) met the
accused and enquired about their visiting the house and that
the accused informed him that they came to the house in
connection with business purpose and on hearing their
voice, deceased came out of the house and then A-2 thrown
her on the floor and A-1 placed his hands over her mouth
and that A-2 took knife from A-1 and stabbed over left side
of stomach of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased
died on the spot. However, L.W.4, one of the crucial witness
in this case, was not examined by the prosecution for the
reasons best known to them. Further, L.W.4 has not
appeared before P.W.3-Magistrate for identification of the
accused in the Test Identification Parade.
28. Admittedly, P.W.2 is the husband of the deceased. But
Ex.P1-complaint was given by P.W.1, who is the brother of
the deceased, when he came to know about the incident
through phone. But, there was no communication between
P.W.1 and P.W.2 either in the house or in the Police Station
24 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
before giving complaint to the police and as such missing of
valuables and cash was not mentioned in Ex.P1-complaint at
the earliest point of time. Though P.W.2 stated that he gave
written report to the police, it was not on record. P.W.7-
panch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A-1 in his
cross-examination stated that police did not weigh the gold
ornaments in his presence. P.W.10 also in his cross-
examination stated that he did not weigh the gold ornaments
at the time of drafting confession. Even P.W.2, husband of
the deceased, has not stated in his evidence regarding the
weight of gold ornaments lost by him. P.W.5, son of the
deceased, in his evidence stated that P.W.2 told him that
somebody took away cash of Rs.1,75,000/- along with gold
ornaments from their house. But, under Ex.P7 and Ex.P7 (a)-
Confession and seizure panchanama of A-1, the weight of
gold ornaments was mentioned as 87 grams viz., gold
bangles - 4 about 36 grams, gold chains - 2 about 42 grams
and gold ear rings - 2 pairs about 9 grams. In the said
25 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
panchanama, the weight of gold ornaments was mentioned
exactly in grams by P.W.10-Inspector of Police. It is not
known as to how they came to know about the exact weight
of gold ornaments without the assistance of appraiser. P.W.2
has not furnished any details regarding purchase of gold
ornaments and he has not given any identification marks
regarding M.Os.1 to 3. He simply stated in his evidence that
gold bangles four in number, gold chains two in number and
two pairs of gold ear tops were found missing in the almirah
of his house. P.W.2 has not produced any bills regarding
purchase of said gold ornaments.
29. Recovery of weapon used in the commission of offence
basing on the confession of A-1 is concerned, P.W.10-
Inspector of Police stated that he recovered M.O.7-Knife at
the instance of A-1 at Jodumetla village near Narapally,
which is at a distant place, and it is an open place accessible
to the public. He admitted in his cross-examination that
M.O.7 is available in the open market. As per the evidence
26 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
of P.W.4-Doctor, the deceased died due to stab injury on
chest. But, M.O.7 was not sent to F.S.L. to know whether the
injury caused to the deceased was with the same knife or
not. P.W.10 stated that in Ex.P7, A-1 also confessed that with
the stolen amount, he purchased M.Os.11 to M.O.13 i.e., one
Sansui colour Television, One VCD player along with music
system and one Bajaj Chetak scooter. However, P.W.10
stated in his cross-examination that he did not investigate
into the ownership particulars of M.O.13 and also as to
where M.Os.11 and 12 were purchased. He further stated
that he did not mention the size of knife in Ex.P10.
30. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon a
decision in Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:
"Section 25 of the Evidence Act not only bars proof of
admission of an offence, but also of other incriminating facts
relating to the offence. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of
the Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under no
circumstance is admissible in evidence against the accused.
(1994) 2 SCC 467
27 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
According to the Apex Court, Section 25 of the Evidence
Act is based on the ground of public policy. However, the only
part of the confession statement that can be read against the
accused is the one permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. The 'fact discovered' as envisaged under Section 27
embraces the place from which the object was produced, the
knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must
relate distinctly to that effect.
31. In view of the reasons aforementioned, we are of the
opinion that there are several lacunae in the investigation
conducted by P.W.10 and even in the Test Identification
Parade, P.W.3 has not followed the procedure properly.
Further, there is variance in the descriptive particulars of the
accused given by P.W.2. In fact, four months after the
incident, the accused were arrested during the vehicle check
by P.W.10 and that it is unbelievable to infer that still the
accused were keeping the gold ornaments with them as
alleged by the prosecution. So also, P.W.10 did not weigh
the gold ornaments seized from the possession of the
28 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
accused at any point of time. Further, in Ex.P1-complaint,
P.W.1, brother of the deceased, did not mention with regard
to missing of gold ornaments in the house of the deceased.
Though P.W.2, husband of the deceased, noticed about the
loss of gold ornaments, he has not given any complaint to
the police. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.10 that
M.O.7-Knife recovered at the instance of A-1 was not sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. The trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right
perspective and erred in convicting the appellants/A-1 and
A-2. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of
appellants/A1 and A-2 for the offences with which they
were charged beyond all reasonable doubt and as such they
are entitled for acquittal.
32. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.
The conviction and sentence recorded against the
appellants/A-1 and A-2 in the impugned judgment, dated
29 KL, J & PSS, J
Crl.A.Nos.461 of 2014&318 of 2015
25.03.2014 passed in S.C.No.602 of 2010 on the file of the III-
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 of I.P.C against A-2,
302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against A-1 and 392 read
with Section 34 of I.P.C against A-1 and A-2 are hereby set
aside and they are acquitted of the said offences. The bail
bonds of appellants/A-1 and A-2 are hereby cancelled and
their sureties are discharged and they shall be set at liberty
forthwith, if they are not otherwise required in any other case.
The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be
refunded to them. M.O.1 to M.O.3-Gold ornaments shall be
confiscated to the Government as unclaimed property.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
18.12.2023
Gsn
