Telangana High Court
Abdul Wajeed Khan , Mohammed Wajeed , ... vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By Public ... on 24 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.107 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed, aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence for the offences under Sections 304-Part-I and 324 of IPC,
recorded by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at
Hyderabad in S.C.No.95 of 2010 dated 02.02.2011.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.06.2009, at the
Valima dinner arranged at Aziz Function Hall, Musheerabad
between 10.30 p.m and 11.00 p.m, a barath (procession) was taken
out. The deceased, namely Anwar Ahmad, was part of the barath. In
the said barath, P.Ws.1 to 9, 13, and several others were present.
The appellant is a resident of the same locality and their common
friend. While all of them were dancing in the barath, the deceased
dashed against the appellant, causing the appellant to fall down.
The appellant then picked up a quarrel. When all the other friends
pacified the matter, the appellant went away. However, he later
returned with a knife and attacked the deceased on the lower part
of the neck, resulting in his death.
3. A complaint was filed by P.W.1 alleging that the appellant had
attacked the deceased with a knife and inflicted stab injuries to his
neck and forehead.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed, the police took up the
investigation and thereafter went to the scene of offence. The scene
of offence was secured. The body of the deceased was taken to the
Gandhi hospital, where the inquest was held, and then, the body
was sent for postmortem examination. The Doctor found four
injuries, of which stab injuries 2, 3, and 4 were fatal.
5. The appellant was arrested on 15.06.2009, and pursuant to
his confession, the knife with which he allegedly attacked the
deceased was recovered.
6. P.Ws.1 to 9 and 13 were examined as witnesses to the
incident. P.Ws.1 to 3, in their chief examination, narrated the
incident, stating that there was a scuffle between the appellant and
the deceased, and thereafter, the appellant left the place.
Thereafter, he returned and attacked the deceased with a knife.
However, in the cross-examination, they resiled from their earlier
statements in chief examination and stated that they do not know
who attacked the deceased. P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 13 have turned
hostile to the prosecution case.
7. The evidence against the appellant primarily consists of the
testimony of eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, who initially narrated that
the appellant attacked the deceased. However, they later resiled
from their statements and, in the cross-examination, claimed that
they did not know who attacked the deceased.
8. P.Ws.1 to 3 are self-condemned and self-contradicting
witnesses, giving two different versions in their evidence. The Court
cannot selectively rely on the evidence given in the chief
examination to convict the appellant.
9. Time was taken for cross-examination and thereafter, the
witnesses turned hostile. The hostility of the witnesses during
cross-examination will not in any manner help the prosecution, to
discard what is stated in the cross-examination and rely on the
chief-examination only.
10. In the said circumstances, when there is no eyewitness
account to substantiate the version of the prosecution that the
appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased, resulting in his death,
the recovery of the knife is of no consequence. In view of the
hostility of the witnesses, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
11. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.95 of
2010, dated 02.02.2011 is hereby set aside, and the appellant is
acquitted.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.03.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.107 of 2011
Date: 24.03.2025
kvs
