Telangana High Court
Shaik Ghouse , Pappu And Another vs State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.01.2018, in
S.C.No.95 of 2017, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad, whereby the appellants/accused Nos.1 and
2, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The entire case of the prosecution rests on PW.1, who
according to the prosecution, is the eye-witness to the incident,
and also the brother of the deceased. According to PW.1, his
brother/deceased used to beat his wife/Rasheeda Begum in a
drunken state. A case was registered against the deceased and
his wife at Musheerabad Police Station on the allegations of
committing theft. The deceased used to steal the amount for his
vices, and used to beat his wife. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the
brothers-in-law of the deceased. According to PW.1, on
07.09.2015 at about 7.30 P.M., while it was drizzling, he was
going from Kishanbagh towards Bahadurpura on his
motorcycle. On the way, near the pan shop of Ashraf/PW.3, the
appellants attacked the deceased with an iron rod and a stick.
PW.1 went there and tried to rescue the deceased. However, the
accused No.1 pushed him aside. Accused Nos.3 to 5 (acquitted
accused) assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 in attacking the
deceased. On account of the head injury, the brain matter of
the deceased came out from the skull. All the accused escaped
in an auto.
4. PW.1 then went to the police station at around 11.30
P.M., and lodged a report, which is marked as Ex.P1. In the
cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that PW.10, who is the
Inspector of Police/Harish Kaushik, came to the scene within
15 minutes after the incident, and both PW.10 and PW.1 were
present at the scene of offence for 2 to 2½ hours. Thereafter
PW.10 scribed Ex.P1 since PW.1 did not know reading and
writing in Telugu. PW.1 further admitted that there is a police
out-post on the main road at a distance of 100 meters from the
Ashraf pan shop. By the time PW.1 went to the police station,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were present at the Police Station.
5. PW.10 stated that on the credible information received
from the complainant on 08.09.2015, and after the registration
of the crime by PW.9, he went to the scene of offence at 00.30
hours on 08.09.20215. There, he photographed the scene and
collected the evidence from the scene of evidence, and after the
conclusion of the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent
for the post-mortem examination. According to PW.10, on
08.09.2015, PW.9 and other person apprehended accused
Nos.1 to 5 and produced them before him. In the cross-
examination, PW.10 stated that he was present in the police
station when the complaint was lodged, and further stated that
neither he nor any police officials visited the scene of offence
prior to the complaint being lodged by PW.1. Further, PW.10 is
not the scribe of Ex.P1. PW.10 also admitted that PW.1 had not
stated before him that accused Nos.3 to 5 are the friends of the
accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.1 had not stated that it was drizzling
at the time of the incident, and that he was going on a motor
cycle from Kishanbagh towards Bahadurpura. PW.1 had not
stated before him about the gathering of public or that they
called for an ambulance and informed the police. After some
time, a rakshak vehicle and an ambulance came to the scene,
or that he informed the Inspector, Bahadurpura who came to
the scene.
6. The entire case rests on sole evidence of the eye-
witness/PW.1. The complaint was lodged with a delay of four
hours, which was unexplained by the prosecution. The
evidence of PW.1 regarding the manner in which the police
officials have arrived at the scene was contradicted by the
Inspector of Police. The version of PW.1 that the police arrived
within 15 minutes and remained there for nearly about 2 to 2
½ hours was contradicted by PW.10, who stated that they
reached the scene of offence at 00.30 hours, i.e., only after
receiving the complaint at around 11.30 P.M. Further, the
narration of PW.1 in his chief-examination about the incident,
as extracted above, is a complete omission.
7. Contrary to the version of PW.1 that the accused Nos.1
and 2 were found at the police station when PW.1 went to the
police station to lodge a complaint, PW.10 stated that the
accused Nos.1 to 5 were apprehended on 08.09.2015, at 07.30
P.M.
8. As discussed above, the versions given by PWs.1 and 10
contradict each other. The only inference that can be drawn is
that the actual occurrence of the incident was suppressed by
the prosecution, and they have come up with a version that
suits their case. PW.1 is a chance witness. According to him, he
witnessed the incident when he was going on the said road. The
said version that he was going on a motor cycle from
Kishanbagh to Bahadurpura, is a complete omission in his
statement given before the police. Apart from the evidence of
PW.1, there is no other evidence to corroborate the version of
the prosecution regarding either the presence of accused Nos.1
to 5 at the scene or the alleged attack by the accused Nos.1 and
2. PW.3, in front of whose pan shop the incident took place,
has turned hostile to the prosecution case. Once the evidence
of PW.1 is eschewed from the case, there is no other evidence to
support the version of the prosecution that it was the
appellants who had attacked the deceased.
9. The seized clothes of the deceased were examined,
however, the FSL examination did not reflect that the seized
clothes contained any blood stains of the deceased per se. As
discussed supra, the prosecution failed to establish that the
appellants had caused the death of the deceased and also failed
to make out any case in their favour.
10. The appellants succeed in the present appeal, and
accordingly, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the
judgment dated 29.01.2018 in S.C.No.95 of 2017, on the file of
the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the said
offences, and they shall be set at liberty, if they are not
required in any other cases. The fine amount paid, if any, shall
be returned.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 20.03.2025
PNS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.628 of 2018
Dated 20.03.2025
PNS
