Telangana High Court
Nazi , Nooh Naziullahqudari vs State Of Telangana on 18 February, 2025
1HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.362 OF 2017
Between:
Syed Jahangir and others ... Appellants
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.442 OF 2017
Between:
Nazi @ Nooh Nazi-ullah-Qudari and another ... Appellants
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.02.2025
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
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 Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ Crl.A. No. 362 OF 2017
% Dated 18.02.2025
# Syed Jahangir and others ... Appellants
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
+ Crl.A. No. 442 OF 2017
% Dated 18.02.2025
# Nazi @ Nooh Nazi-Ullah-Qudari and another ... Appellants
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V.Pattabhi
Sri C.Sharan Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 526
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.362 and 442 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2017 is filed by the appellants/A1,
A3, A5 and A6 and, Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2017 is filed by A2
and A4.
2. A1 to A6 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment vide judgment in
S.C.No.761 of 2015 dated 23.03.2017 passed by the XIV Additional
District & Sessions Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
3. Since both the appeals are questioning the conviction of the
appellants/A1 to A6, both the appeals are heard together and
disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that P.W.1, is the wife of the
deceased. After receiving information around 11.00 p.m on
08.01.2015, from Assistant Sub-Inspector, who was on patrolling
duty about a murder, P.W.19, went to the hospital and observed the
dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the house of the
deceased at 2.00 a.m, and recorded the statement of P.W.1. In the
statement narrated to P.W.19, P.W.1 stated that her deceased
husband namely Shaik Saleemuddin, was working as MPTC of MIM
party. On 08.01.2015, the locality persons by name Habeeb/A3 and
his wife Smt.Seema Begum/A5 and others picked up quarrel with
the deceased and threatened him with dire consequences regarding
plot assignments. In the evening around 9.00 p.m or 10.00 p.m,
while P.W.1 and the deceased were present in the house having
dinner, someone called on phone asking the deceased to come out
of the house. The deceased went out and shouted "Seema Seema".
Then P.W.1 went out and found A3, A5 and brother-in-law of
Habeeb stabbing the deceased. The deceased fell down and a
granite stone was thrown on his face. P.W.1 shouted for help. The
neighbors/P.W.4 and others came to the scene of offence.
Immediately, the brothers of P.W.1, who are P.Ws.2 and 3 were
informed, and they arrived at the scene. P.Ws.1 to 3 shifted the
deceased to the Owaisi Hospital for treatment. The deceased was
declared as brought dead at the hospital. The reason for committing
murder of the deceased was plot assignments in the locality.
5. Having recorded the statement of PW.1, PW.19 went to the
police station and registered FIR at 3.15 a.m, on 09.01.2015. The
same day, P.W.19 again visited the house of P.W.1 and recorded the
statements of P.W.8 who is brother of PW.1, and P.Ws.2 and 3, who
are also brothers of P.W.1. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are neighbors, their
statements were also recorded. The scene of offence panchanama
was conducted and the broken knife and other material objects
were seized from the scene.
6. The appellants/A1 and A3 surrendered before the concerned
Court. P.W.19 then filed requisition for police custody on
10.01.2015. Police custody of A1 and A3 was granted for 4 days,
starting from 13.01.2015. During interrogation, the motor bike of
A1 and A3 was seized. On 16.01.2015, P.W.19 apprehended A5. On
22.01.2015, A2 and A4 surrendered before P.W.19. Their
confessional statements were recorded. A6 surrendered on
23.01.2015, before the concerned Court. Police custody of A6 was
taken for a day. One motor cycle was seized at the instance of A6.
7. P.W.19 filed requisition before the Magistrate/P.W.17 to
conduct test identification parade of A4 and A5. P.W.1 identified A4
and A5 during test identification parade proceedings. P.W.19, after
concluding investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the
offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section
24(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act.
8. Sri V.Pattabhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellants, argued that P.W.1 is a planted witness. No specific overt
acts are attributed to any of the appellants. Further, A4 and A5
were strangers, and in the cross-examination of P.W.1, she
admitted that photographs of A4 and A5 were shown to her by the
police prior to TIP. The version of P.Ws.1 to 3, that they have shifted
the deceased to the hospital is also doubtful, since the clothes of
P.Ws.1 to 3 were not stained with blood. No photographs of
deceased were taken. The auto driver was also not examined, who
allegedly carried P.Ws.1 to 3 and the body of the deceased to the
hospital. The most important factor is that on 09.01.2015, P.W.19
admitted that he addressed a letter to the RMO of the Osmania
General Hospital requesting to preserve the dead body of the
deceased, and in the said letter, he mentioned that the deceased
was killed by unknown persons. It is apparent that there was no
information about the assailants to the Inspector or to the
witnesses even when the body was taken to the hospital.
9. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the Investigating
Officer/P.W.19 failed to call clues team or obtain finger prints on
the knife, blade, or the handle of the knife, though they were
available at the scene. The Court disbelieved the identification of A4
and A5 by P.W.1. However, A4 and A5 were convicted. In the
absence of there being any overt acts attributed to any of the
appellants, the question of conviction under Section 302 of IPC
simplicitor does not arise. The Court has not taken aid of Section
34 of IPC to convict the appellants, as such, the conviction is not
proper.
10. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that suspicion, however
strong it may be, cannot take place of proof. It is for the prosecution
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The solitary testimony
of P.W.1 was considered by the Court below to convict A1 to A6,
which is erroneous and has to be set aside. He relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravishankar
Tandon v. State of Chattisgarh 1, wherein it was held as follows:
"10. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be,
cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An
accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no
matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent
unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
11. Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
submitted that P.Ws.1 and 4 are eye witnesses to the incident.
There is no necessity for P.W.1 and P.W.4 to speak false against any
of the appellants. Other than A3 and A4, all other accused are
strangers to PW.1 and PW.4. However, all the accused were
identified in Court.
12. The version of P.W.19 is that he received information about
the murder from L.Bhoopal Reddy, ASI, who was on patrolling duty
(not examined) and then, P.W.19 went to the Hospital and from
there, to the residence of P.W.1 and recorded statement of P.W.1 at
2.00 a.m. In the said statement of PW.1, the names of the
appellants A3 and A5 and witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 were written.
However, P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that she got Ex.P1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 526
complaint prepared in her house and handed it over to police. P.W.1
further admitted that except in Ex.P1 complaint, she has not signed
on any other complaint. As seen from Ex.P1, it is the statement
recorded by P.W.19 and not the complaint, which according to
P.W.1 was prepared in the house. The signature on P.W.1 appears
on Ex.P1. The version of PW.1, that a written complaint was
prepared in the house, when considered in the background of the
case, appears to have been suppressed and Ex.P1 statement was
prepared subsequently and not at the time appearing in Ex.P1.
13. Ex.P20 is the requisition given by P.W.19/Inspector of Police
addressed to the RMO, Osmania General Hospital. The said letter is
dated 09.01.2015. For the sake of convenience, the said letter is
extracted hereunder:
"To
The R.M.O,
Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: Police-Pahadishareef-Deadbody of Sri Sk.Saleemuddin
r/o.Wadi-e-Musthafa-Preserve the dead body-Request-Reg.
Cr.No: 7-15 Dt: 9.1.2015 PS Pahadi Shareef.
With reference to the above cited subject, it is to submit that, Sri
Sk.Saleemuddin alias Salim S/o.Late Sk.Shareef age 35, Occ: Business and
MPTC Wadi-e-Musthafa, R/o.Wadi-e-Musthafa was killed by un-known persons
on the night of 8.1.2015 at his residence. He was died at Owaisi hospital.,
Santhosh Nagar. I am herewith sending for P.M.E under the escort of PC:5116 Sri
M.Kumar of P.S.Pahadi Shareef.
Therefore, it is requested the Officer may please be preserve the
dead body at Mortuary O.G.H for further examination & investigation pl.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours faithfully
Sd/-9-1-15
(P.Venkateshwarlu)
Inspector of Police
Pahadi Shareef PS,
Cyberabad.
Through PC 5116
Health Inspector
O.G.H
Sd/-For RMO
9/1/2015
3.30 AM"
14. The said letter bears the time as 3.30 AM, which was received
on OGH by the doctor. If at all P.W.19 had already recorded the
statement of P.W.1 at her residence at 2.00 a.m, and registered the
FIR at 3.15 a.m, the question of P.W.19 writing in Ex.P20, around
3.30 a.m, that the deceased was killed by unknown persons would
not arise.
15. Apart from the said discrepancies, to worsen the case of the
prosecution, the FIR, which was registered at 3.15 A.M, and sent to
Court, reached the concerned Court at 11.00 A.M on 09.01.2015.
There is a delay of 7 ½ hours in the FIR reaching the Court. The
said delay has to be looked into in the back ground of the
prosecution claiming that P.W.19 visited the Owaisi hospital
immediately around 11.00 P.M on 08.01.2015. According to P.Ws.1
to 3, all three of them shifted the dead body to the hospital. Though
P.W.19 went to the hospital at 11.00 P.M, neither the statement of
P.W.1, nor P.Ws.2 and 3 were recorded. P.W.19 again went back to
the house of P.W.1 at 2.00 A.M and recorded the statement. If
P.Ws.1 to 3 were present in the hospital at 11.00 P.M, there is no
reason why P.W.19 did not record statements of PWs.1 to 3. P.W.19
goes to the house of P.W.1 at 2.00 A.M on 09.01.2015 and records
her statement. According to the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were
all aware of the assailants, who committed the murder. If this was
the case, P.W.19 would have known about the details of the
assailants at 11.00 p.m on 08.01.2015 itself, when he visited
Owaisi hospital.
16. The said anomalies, when viewed with the delay of complaint
reaching the Court, the logical conclusion is that even by 3.30 A.M
on 09.01.2015, when Ex.P20 was addressed by P.W.19, P.W.19 or
anyone else had no clue about the assailants. The names of all the
appellants mentioned in the complaint were added subsequently
and apparently, after 3.30 A.M. P.W.1 stated that she prepared
complaint, which is denied by P.W.19, and he stated that he
recorded complaint at 2.00 A.M, which would go to show that the
complaint Ex.P1 and the identity of the appellants were later
mentioned in the complaint, which explains the delay in the FIR
reaching the Court.
17. P.W.4 is not an eye witness to the incident. He stated that he
came out and saw A3 and A5 going on motor cycle. He also found
two others at the scene. P.W.5 stated that by the time he went to
the scene, no one was present. P.W.4 stated that he does not know
who A6 is and he has not seen A6 at the scene. When the evidence
of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and Ex.P20 are considered together, it is
apparent that the earliest version is suppressed by the prosecution.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellants.
19. Accordingly, judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.761 of 2015
dated 23.03.2017 passed by the XIV Additional District & Sessions
Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is hereby set aside and the appellants
are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds
shall stand discharged.
20. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 18.02.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.362 and 442 of 2017
Date: 18.02.2025
kvs
