Telangana High Court
Shaik Mujeeb , Saddam, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 26 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1171 OF 2010
Between:
Shaik Mujeeb @ Saddam ... Appellant
And
The State of AP,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 26.07.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 1171 OF 2010
% Dated 26.07.2024
# Shaik Mujeeb @ Saddam ... Appellant
And
$ The State of AP,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Hari Prasad Reddy,
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Assistant Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2435
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1171 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-
II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years vide judgment in S.C.No.69 of 2009 dated
05.10.2010 passed by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that deceased namely D.
Rishi Kumar and appellant were taking coaching classes for spoken
English in Ratna Spoken English Institute at Kamareddy, which
was run by P.W.6. On 23.09.2008, Rishi Kumar did not return from
the coaching class, as such, father/P.W.1 filed complaint on
26.09.2008 with Kamareddy Police after searching for him for three
days. On 30.09.2008, P.W.1 came to now that dead body of a male
person was found in Tekriyal village tank. P.W.1, having identified
the dead body as his son, Devanpally Police registered crime since
body was found in their jurisdiction.
3. During investigation, P.Ws.4 and 5, who are the friends of the
appellant informed the police that the appellant confessed before
them on 23.09.2008, that he had killed the deceased Rishi Kumar.
However, P.Ws.4 and 5 stated that since the appellant threatened
them, they did not inform to the police immediately. The statements
of P.W.4 and P.W.5 were recorded under Section 161 CrP.C on
22.10.2008.On the very same day, the appellant was arrested in the
presence of P.W.10, who was the VRO and confession was recorded
and the cell phone belonging to the deceased was recovered at his
instance. Though, initially the case was registered under Section
174 Cr.P.C, the section of law was altered to Section 302 and 379
IPC. The police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 302
and 379 IPC after concluding investigation.
4. According to the version of the prosecution, the investigation
revealed that the appellant and the deceased Rishi Kumar were
friends. The appellant took Rishi Kumar on 23.09.2008 near the
Bund and both of them consumed toddy. Appellant asked Rishi
Kumar to forget about girl namely Brahmani and during the said
conversation, both of them fought with each other. The appellant
allegedly beat Rishi Kumar with a stick and also with a stone and
pushed him into the tank to kill him. Meanwhile, the cell phone of
Rishi Kumar which fell on the ground was taken by appellant. He
removed the SIM card from the phone and threw it in the tank.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who are
friends of the appellant. According to their version, on 23.09.2008,
the appellant confessed before them that he had killed said Rishi
Kumar, however, threatened them not to reveal it to the police.
5. Strangely, in this case, the statements of P.Ws.4 and 5 were
recorded on 22.10.2008 and on the very same day, the appellant
was arrested.
6. The prosecution wholly relies on (i) the extra-judicial
confession made to P.Ws.4 and 5 and also (ii) the evidence of P.W.6,
who stated that both the appellant and Rishi Kumar attended
classes on 23.09.2008 and left. (iii) Recovery of cell phone of
deceased from appellant and (iv) injuries received by appellant.
7. During cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that there are around
50 to 60 students in every batch and he cannot give the specific
details regarding the students who have attended the classes.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahadevan and
another v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2435)
laid down the principles that have to be followed in the cases of
extra-judicial confessions and held as follows:
"22. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will
be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial
confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of
conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while
dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an
extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused.
The Principles
i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined
by the court with greater care and caution.
ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii) It should inspire confidence.
iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if
it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by
other prosecution evidence.
v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not
suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in
accordance with law."
9. The very version regarding the confession made to P.Ws.4 and
5, throws any amount of doubt. P.Ws.4 and 5 version is not
believable. There is no reason why he would confess to both of them
separately on the date of the alleged incident. P.Ws.4 and 5 did not
state about relation with appellant. Except stating that the
appellant threatened them not to disclose it to anyone, no reasons
are given under what circumstances such confession was made.
Appellant was staying in the same village and also P.Ws.4 and 5.
What prompted P.Ws.4 and 5 to state before the police on
22.10.2008 regarding confession also is not stated by the witnesses.
10. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, there is no
corroboration to the version of the prosecution that both the
appellant and the deceased went near the Tank. Prosecution relies
on the evidence of P.W.14/Doctor to prove that appellant received
injuries on the left toe one month prior to his arrest. However, it is
of no use. No injuries were found on the deceased to suggest that
there was any fight in between appellant and deceased.
11. The cause of death, according to the post mortem report Ex.P9
and the evidence of P.W.11/Doctor is Asphyxia due to drowning.
However, no injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased.
In the absence of any injuries that were found, it is highly
suspicious regarding the version of the prosecution that the
appellant had beaten the deceased with a stick and threw him into
the tank.
12. The only connecting evidence is seizure of cell phone from the
appellant. Even assuming that the cell phone belongs to the
deceased, the seizure cannot form basis to infer that the appellant
had beaten the deceased with the stick and then threw him in the
Tank. As already discussed, the incident happened on 23.09.2008
and the appellant was arrested on 22.10.2008 nearly one month
thereafter. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion cannot form
basis to convict the appellant. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellant.
In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.69 of 2009
dated 05.10.2010 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
13. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.07.2024
kvs
