Telangana High Court
Mohammad Khaja Moinuddin, Nalgonda ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 18 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC vide
judgment in S.C.No.500 of 2011, dated 14.06.2017, passed by
the VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalaguda. Aggrieved by
the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 was
married to one Sk.Jani, and she gave birth to two children. Her
husband deserted her due to some disputes and she got
acquainted with the appellant. P.W.1 married the appellant. The
appellant forced her to do prostitution. One year prior to the
incident, a person, namely Muthaiah, asked P.W.1 to have sex
with him and also insulted her. Coming to know about the
incident, the appellant and his friends, who are, the deceased
herein, B.Kondaiah, and P.W.2, namely Moulali, and another
person, tried to commit the murder of Muthaiah. A case was
registered against all of them for the offence under Section 307 of
IPC and same is pending trial on the file of the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Miryalaguda. All of them were attending to the Court.
P.W.1 developed intimacy with the deceased and married him.
They stayed together in Nizamabad and then in Hyderabad for
some time. Four months prior to the incident, P.W.1 and
deceased rented a room in Haliya town and were residing there.
3. The incident happened on 21.09.2010. P.W.1 along with the
deceased went to the Court to attend the case. Since the case was
before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda Court, both
P.W.1 and the deceased went to a hotel, and from there, they
arrived at the Court and were sitting under a neem tree on the
pial (cement construction around the neem tree). P.W.2
questioned the deceased and the appellant also confronted the
deceased and threatened to see his end at Nagarjunasagar.
Before the deceased could reply, the appellant took out a knife
and stabbed him on his throat, stomach, and chest, several
times. The appellant tried to flee, then, two constables, P.Ws.3
and 4, chased him.
4. A complaint was filed by P.W.1 with the police, narrating the
incident.
5. The deceased died while being taken to the hospital. The
scene of offence panchanama was conducted at the scene and
thereafter, the inquest proceedings were also concluded in the
hospital. After the inquest proceedings, P.W.12 conducted
autopsy and found the following injuries:
"1. Lacerated wound dorsal of left hand from little finger to dorsal
aspect 5 cm x ½ cm.
2. Lacerated wound left cubital fossa of left elbow 6 cm x 5 cm
3. Lacerated wound near left nipple 3 cm x 2 cm
4. Lacerated wound epigastrium (centreof the stomach) 3 cm x 1 cm
5. Lacerated wound centre of chest 6 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm
6. Lacerated wound left base of neck 3 cm x 3 cm x 8 cm deep
7. Lacerated wound below right eye 3 cm x 2 cm
8. Lacerated wound right nipple 3 cm x 2 cm
9. Lacerated wound right hypochomdrium near oblicus 2 cm x 3 cm x
2 cm x 5 cm
10. Lacerated wound right wrist 3 cm x 3 cm ventral aspect
11. Lacerated wound dorsum of right wrist 2 cm x 3 cm
12. Fracture of 1 cm x 2 cm left ribs and 5 and 6 left ribs
13. Fracture of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 on right ribs
14. A hole in left lung anteriority 1 cm x 1 cm
15. A hole in left upper part of heart 1 cm x 1 cm and inferior aspect
of heart 1 cm x 1 cm
16. A hole in the left lobe superior aspect of liver
17. Blood in the pericardial cavity."
6. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem
in nature and the cause of death was due to multiple injuries.
Learned trial judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of eye
witnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 6 and 8, and convicted the appellant.
7. Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for R.Swarnalatha Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be considered
since she is an interested witness. She is the wife of the appellant
and she lived with the deceased. Apart from the evidence of
P.W.1, there is no other evidence, which could be relied upon to
conclude that it was the appellant who had committed the
murder. The trial Court has disbelieved the eye witness account
of P.W.3, P.W.6, and P.W.8, and found that their evidence could
not be relied upon to convict the appellant. However, having
found that the prosecution has come up with fabricated evidence
against the appellant, the trial Court erred in convicting the
appellant only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1.
8. Alternatively, the learned Senior Counsel submits that there
was no premeditation or intent on the part of the appellant to
murder the deceased. Even according to P.W.1, a quarrel ensued
in between the deceased and the appellant, resulting in the
alleged attack.
9. P.W.1 was right beside the deceased when the appellant,
along with P.W.2, went there and the appellant stabbed the
deceased. Though, P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution case,
the hostility will not, in any manner, help the appellant to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and also of P.W.5. P.W.5 is an
independent witness, who was in the Court premises. He stated
that he saw the appellant stabbing the deceased and fleeing from
the place. Two constables, P.Ws.3 and 4, chased him and tried to
catch him. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to
discredit the evidence of P.W.5.
10. Though, P.W.4 stated that he witnessed the appellant
stabbing the deceased and fleeing from the scene, however, in the
cross-examination, it was elicited by marking Exs.D2 and D3
that he could not see the actual stabbing. However, P.W.4 has
witnessed the appellant running away from the scene and being
chased by two constables.
11. The learned Senior Counsel's argument that the trial Court
disbelieved the evidence of some of the eye witnesses, and the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 should be discarded, cannot be
accepted. Not believing the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, and 8 will not,
in any manner, discredit the eye witness account of P.Ws.1 and
5. It is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence that has to
be looked into. Though, there were several witnesses and some of
them were disbelieved by the Court below, that in itself will not,
in any manner, affect the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, who were
examined at the earliest point of time and the incident was
narrated to the police.
12. The alternative submission of the learned Senior Counsel
that since there was no premeditation to commit the murder, the
offence falls under Section 304-II of IPC, cannot be accepted. It is
a Court premises and the appellant went there with a knife in his
possession. He had continuously stabbed the deceased, resulting
in the deceased receiving multiple stab injuries, and dying, as a
result of the said injuries. The nature of injuries caused would
reflect the intent on the part of the appellant to cause death of
the deceased.
13. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date : 18.03.2025
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENU GOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.746 of 2017
Date: 18.03.2025
kvs
