Telangana High Court
Razzak Khan , Razzak , Laddu And Another vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 OF 2018
Between:
Razzak Khan @ Razzak @ Laddu and another.
Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 3.
AND
The State of Telangana.
Respondent/Complainant.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:18.03.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Page 2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 OF 2018
%18.03.2025
# Between:
Razzak Khan @ Razzak @ Laddu.
Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 3
AND
The State of Telangana.
Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for Appellants : Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy and
Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy
^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,
learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2024) 8 Supreme Court Cases 600
2. (2022) 9 Supreme Court Cases 402
Page 3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
The present criminal appeal is filed under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3,
aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2018 in SC No.181
of 2014, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.
2. Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy and Sri
P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused
No.1 and accused No.2 (acquitted) are the sons of accused
Nos.3 and 4 (acquitted) (A4 is the second wife of A3), and
they are residents of Rahmathpura near Bahadurpura area,
Hyderabad city. PW8 is the first wife of A3 and the mother
Page 4
of the deceased. PWs.1, 9, and 10 are PW8's sons through
A3. PW12 is the widow of the deceased, and she resides in
the house situated at Chandulal Baradari area, Hyderabad
City, which is in the name of PW9. There are about 12
mulgies situated at Rahamathpura area, registered in the
name of PW8. There are 2 mulgies situated at Abids, one in
the name of deceased, and another in the name of PW10.
There was a dispute in sharing the rents of mulgies among
accused, PW9, and her sons for a long time.
4. While so, on 06.06.2013, at about 03.30 P.M., the
deceased left the house to attend his job at Bank of America
in Hitech City. The deceased used to walk up to the Metro
Theatre and catch the company vehicle. At about 04.00
PM, while the deceased was proceeding on foot from
Bahadurpura X Roads to Kamatipura, (near Rama Theatre)
A1 allegedly attacked the deceased with a knife and fled.
PW18, the Inspector of Police, Bhahadurpura Police
Station, received a call on the 100 number about the
incident at 04.20 PM and rushed to the scene, which is half
a kilometre away from the police station. As the deceased
Page 5
was found dead in a pool of blood, PW18 shifted the dead
body to the mortuary, Osmania General Hospital. PW18
then observed the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P15, the
crime details/observation report, and concluded it by 05.00
PM after examining PWs.2 to 7.
5. It is said that PW18 found the driving licence/Ex.P14
of the deceased at the scene, and he made arrangements to
inform the family members of the deceased staying in the
said address. Accordingly, the police went to the house of
the deceased, and informed PW1 to go over to mortuary and
indentify the body. Accordingly, PW1 went to mortuary,
identified the body and thereafter went to the police station
and lodged Ex.P1/complaint, based on which PW18
registered a case in Crime No.126 of 2013 for the offences
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC
and under Section 109 of IPC, and issued Ex.P16/FIR, and
sent the FIR to the concerned Court.
6. During investigation, PW18 examined PW1 and
recorded his statement. On the next day, PW18 examined
PWs.8 to 12, and others, and held inquest-Ex.P6 over the
Page 6
dead body, and seized MOs.1, 2, and 7 to 11 under the
seizure report Ex.P10, in the presence of PWs.13 and 14,
and sent the body for post-mortem examination. It is said
that, on 09.06.2013, A1 to A3 were apprehended and their
confession-cum-seizure panchanams were recorded in the
presence of PWs.13 and 15.
7. The charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating
Officer/PW18 against the appellants, who were arrayed as
accused Nos.1, 3, and two others. The learned Sessions
Judge found that the accused Nos.1 and 3 were complicit in
committing the offence of murder of the deceased, and
acquitted accused Nos.2 and 4 for lack of evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that
the alleged disputes/enmity between the 2 families, i.e.,
between PWs.8 to 10 on one side and A1 to A4 on another
side regarding the sharing of property and rents from
mulgies, is a belated version and an improvement made
only during the trial by PWs.8 to 10, as elicited from the
evidence of PW18/the Investigating Officer. Further, civil
Page 7
cases were filed by PW8 only after the incident, as stated by
PWs.1 and 9.
9. It is further contended that PW5, the lone eyewitness,
is said to be a planted witness for the reason that he is a
stranger to the deceased and his family members. He
identified A1 at the police station, despite having no prior
acquaintance with A1 or his family members, but did so at
the request of the police on the next day. No test
identification parade was conducted. Further, though PW5
was present at the scene of offence and he claimed that he
has seen the incident, he was examined on the next day by
the police.
10. It is further argued by the counsel that the FIR
appears to be filed after due deliberations and is
questionable because it reached the Court at 10.50 PM,
though it was said to have been registered at 4.30 PM and
allegedly issued immediately. This resulted in a delay of
over six hours in the FIR reaching the concerned
Magistrate. At the time of the report, the FIR was registered
at 04.30 PM, but the identity of the deceased was itself
Page 8
unknown, as the driving licence/Ex.P14 of the deceased
was traced only at 05.00 PM. Thereafter, PW1 was informed
to identify the dead body, and only after that was Ex.P1
lodged, which could have taken approximately one and a
half hours to two hours after Ex.P15.
11. The investigation itself is doubtful as PW18/
Investigating Officer stated that accused were
apprehended/arrested on 09.06.2013, i.e., three days after
the incident, whereas PWs.5, 9, and 10 stated that on the
date of the incident by 06.30 PM, the accused were in police
custody at the police station. The accused were implicated
in the case only to unlawfully take over the self-earned
properties of A3 by taking undue advantage of the incident.
12. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
submits that the role played by A2 would not be evident;
however, PW5, who is the eye witness to the incident, has
categorically stated that it was A1 who attacked the
deceased. In-fact, PW5 identified A1 in the Court.
13. Having gone through the record, the entire case rests
on the evidence of the sole eyewitness/PW5. In the
Page 9
examination before the trial Court, PW5 stated that he
noticed the first appellant/A1 stabbing his brother (the
deceased) with a knife, and fleeing from the scene. PW5
further stated that he came to know that the attack was on
account of a property dispute between them.
14. In the cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he does
not have any previous acquaintance with A1, and on the
next day, he was called to the police station. In the police
station, he identified A1 as the person who stabbed the
deceased. He further stated that he did not know the names
of the appellants until he went to the police station.
15. The incident happed on 06.06.2013, and according to
PW18/Investigating Officer, PW5 was examined on
07.06.2013, at the mortuary of the hospital. However, PW5
stated that he went to the police station, and there, his
statement was recorded. PW18 further stated that the
appellants were apprehended on 09.06.2013. PW9, who is
the brother of the deceased, stated in the chief-examination
that he went to the mortuary of Osmania General Hospital
and found the dead body of deceased with stab injuries.
Page 10
From there, he went to Bahadurpura police station, and by
that time, A1 and A3 were in the police station, and within
half an hour, A2 was also brought to the police station in a
jeep. The inquest proceedings were conducted on
07.06.2013, and according to PW9, A1 to A3 were in the
police station on the 07th itself.
16. Similar is the evidence of PW10, who is another
brother of the deceased. He stated in his chief-examination
that he went to Osmania General Hospital, and found the
dead body of the deceased with stab injuries, and then, he
went to the police station, Bahadurpura, and he found A1
to A3 in the police station.
17. The evidence of PW5/eyewitness, PWs.9 and 10, who
are the brothers of the deceased, contradict the evidence of
the Investigating Officer that the appellants were arrested
on 09.06.2013. If the evidence of the Investigating Officer
is considered, A1 to A3 were apprehended only three days
after the incident. However, PWs.5, 9, and 10 speak about
their presence in the police station on the 7th itself. The
said discrepancy gives rise to a doubt in the mind of the
Page 11
Court regarding the prosecution's case in projecting the
true and correct facts. It appears that the earliest version
was suppressed, and the police have come up with a
tainted version. In-fact PWs.5, 9, and 10 were not declared
hostile by the prosecution, nor were they cross-examined
by the Public Prosecutor regarding the presence of A1 to A3
in the police station on the 07th itself.
18. PW5 is a chance witness. According to him, he does
business on the footpath where the incident happened. He
stated that the appellants were strangers to him and he
saw only A1 stabbing the deceased. On the next day, he
saw the appellants in police station, which is falsified by the
evidence of the Investigating Officer. Again, PW5 was
examined in the Court on 20.10.2017, which is nearly four
and a half years after the incident. PW5 identifying A1 in
the Court after a gap of four and a half years is highly
improbable. Admittedly, no identification parade was
conducted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.Sasikumar
Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police 1, held
(2024) 8 Supreme Court Cases 600
Page 12
that when no test identification parade was conducted, and
the witnesses identified the accused for the first time in the
Court, such identification cannot be relied upon. A similar
view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrik
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2. Relying upon the above
judgments, the evidence of PW5 cannot be believed.
19. The other evidence presented by the prosecution is of
no avail to its case. The motive projected by the
prosecution is insufficient to infer that it was the appellants
who have committed the murder of the deceased.
20. The appellants succeed in the present appeal, and
accordingly, the conviction imposed by the trial Court
against them is liable to be set aside.
21. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, setting
aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellants/A1 and A3 vide judgment dated 06.04.2018 in
SC No.181 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. The appellants
(2022) 9 Supreme Court Cases 402
Page 13
shall be set at liberty forth-with if they are not required in
any other crime.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________
EV VENUGOPAL, J
Date :18.03.2025
Abb.
