[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Syed Wahab vs State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2026

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

  IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                 AT: HYDERABAD
             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                                  AND
        HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.183 OF 2019
                           DATE: 16-04-2026
Between:
Mr. Syed Wahab S/o Munawar                        .. Appellant - Accused
                                    Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd.        .. Respondent - Complainant


       This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

31.01.2019 in S.C. No.740 of 2016 passed by learned Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy

District.

KL,J & BRMR,J

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the

appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and

accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay

fine of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.

4. The charge levelled against the appellant herein is that on

02.11.2015 at about 7.00 P.M., he quarreled with the deceased -

Immadi Karthik Reddy S/o Damodhar Reddy in front of Sai Sree

Power System Work Shop, Subash Nagar, and thereby beat the

deceased with a granite stone on his head and caused his death.

5. On receipt of Ex.P1 - report from the father of the deceased

(PW.1) on 02.11.2015 at 21:45 hours, PW.11 - Inspector of Police,

Jeedimetla Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.970 of 2015

under Section - 302 of IPC, issued Ex.P10 - express FIR and took up

investigation. After completion of due formalities, such as

examination of witnesses, recording their statements, securing the

panch witnesses and drawing panchanama in their presence, taking

steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased,

recording confessional statements of accused and receipt of post-

KL,J & BRMR,J

mortem examination report and FSL report etc., the Investigating

Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.

The same was committed to the Sessions Court which has taken on

file as S.C. No.740 of 2016 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.

6. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section -

302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.

7. During trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P10

were marked and MOs.1 to 8 was exhibited. No evidence, both oral

and documentary, was let in by the accused.

8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution,

the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter,

upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against

the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed

sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging

the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant

preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended as

follows:

KL,J & BRMR,J

i. There are contradictions in the versions of the prosecution

witnesses.

ii. There is variance in number of injuries inflicted upon the

deceased between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and

the post-mortem examination report.

iii. Motive on the part of the accused was not proved by the

prosecution.

iv. The accused was implicated in the present case falsely.

v. The trial Court did not consider all the aforesaid aspects.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside

the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit as under:

i. There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to

connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence.

ii. There is direct evidence through PW.3 in whose presence the

appellant - accused committed the aforesaid offence.

iii. There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was

proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

KL,J & BRMR,J

iv. The appellant is a suspect sheet of Jagathgirigutta Police Station

and several criminal cases were registered against him.

v. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, the trial Court

convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

sought to dismiss the appeal.

11. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for

consideration by this Court is:

Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Sections - 302 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

12. Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses would

reveal that PW.1 is the father of the deceased who gave Ex.P1 - report

with the police and thereby set the criminal law in motion. PW.3 is

the friend of the deceased and he is the eye-witness to the occurrence.

13. PW.3, the friend of the deceased, deposed that on

02.11.2015 at 9.30 A.M., he visited the house of the deceased -

Karthik Reddy and they left the home by 11.00 A.M. in a Car

KL,J & BRMR,J

belonging to the brother of the deceased. He drove the car on that

day. They initially proceeded to a Wine Shop situated at Jeedimetla

Bus Depot, where the deceased purchased liquor and then proceeded

to Suraram where the deceased consumed liquor and from there they

proceeded to Ramaram Wines at Ramaram Village, where the

deceased again purchased liquor. Wahab (accused) met them there

and accompanied them. From there, three of them went to Ramaram

village side, where they consumed liquor. At that time, he was

driving the car, while the deceased and the accused were in the back

seat. They were all consuming the liquor and he was driving the car.

Then they proceeded near Subash Nagar Pipe Line Road Wines,

where they stopped the car. They again consumed beer at that place

and the accused and deceased consumed liquor while sitting in the

back side of the car.

i) PW.3 further deposed that thereafter, the accused requested

him to drop him at his house. The deceased intimated the accused that

there is a shortage of petrol in the car and asked the accused to go in

an auto-rickshaw. In that connection, quarrel took place between the

accused and the deceased as the accused questioned as to how can he

refuse to drop him at his house and the deceased told it is not of his

KL,J & BRMR,J

business to drop at his house, on which the quarrel went on and the

accused pushed away the deceased from the car due to which the

deceased fell on the road. Thereafter, the accused took a stone on the

road and beat the deceased on his head with that stone. Thereafter,

the accused ran away from that place. The deceased died on the spot.

The accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. He was

examined by the police and recorded his statement. MO.1 is the stone

used by the accused for beating the deceased. He identified the

accused while in witness box in the Court Hall.

ii) During cross-examination, he admitted that he used to stay

in Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Shapur for the last twenty years along with

his family members. The deceased is his friend from school days. He

is doing driving for the last 10 years. The distance between his house

and the deceased is about 4 kilometers. He knows the accused and his

family members even prior to the incident. The accused immediately

after pushing the deceased from the Car, get down from the car and

thrown a stone on the head of the deceased and immediately ran away

from the spot. It was happened about 7.00 P.M. He admitted that after

his getting down from the car the incident already happened. After

KL,J & BRMR,J

seeing the incident, he became shock, as such, he did not intimate the

incident either to the police or to the parents of the deceased.

14. In this case, the prosecution also examined PWs.4, 5 and 7,

who said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW.4 deposed that he

used to manufacture panel boards under the name and style 'Sri Sai

Balaji Electrical Engineering Works, Subash Nagar, Jeedimetla. On

02.11.2015 evening hours at about 5.00 P.M., while he along with his

brother was in their workshop, a car was stopped in front of his shop

and that car was giving nuisance as well gives sound, then initially he

thought of some mechanical problem of the said car. Sometime

thereafter, he heard big and loud voices from the car, then he went

there and asked the persons what is the problem, then one person

stated his name as Wahab and further stated to him by directing that

do not intervene in their conversation as well altercation. By then, all

the three were in a drunken state, as such, he went inside. Sometime

later, at around 7.00 P.M., he heard big sound from a person, then he

came out and found a person was in a pool of blood, then he

questioned the other person standing there who stated to him that the

said Waheb hit the person, who was fallen on ground with a granite

KL,J & BRMR,J

stone and thereafter the person who told him became unconscious due

to over drinking. On enquiry, he came to know that his name is

Shyamsundar and the person who was fallen on the road with head

injuries is Karthik Reddy. Then, he tried to call 108 Ambulance, but

108 ambulance people said it would take time to come there. Then,

he went inside and got the police station number from paper and

telephoned the police, Jeedimetla about the incident. Thereafter, the

police examined him and his statement was also recorded.

15. PW.5 deposed that he is doing iron scrap business at

Jeedimetla and his shop is situated at Subash Nagar. He saw the

accused and he has no prior acquaintance with him. He knows PW.4.

He further deposed that about three (03) years back in the evening at

about 4.00 P.M, three persons stopped a car in front of his shop,

which is a 40 feet road and those persons after parking the car and

consumed the alcohol, later they were quarrelling with each other.

Though he saw the same as they were in intoxication, he did not

intervene. He further deposed that at about 6.30 P.M. the accused

took a granite stone and beat the deceased on his head. When they

went and tried to stop the accused, he also revolved on them. Then

KL,J & BRMR,J

they themselves restrained as they were in intoxication and as the

person fell on the ground with head injury, he asked PW.4 to give

intimation to the police. The person on whom the granite stone was

fallen due to hit by the accused died then and there. The police

examined him and recorded his statement.

16. PW.7 deposed that he is a resident of Venkateswara Nagar,

Jagathgirigutta. PW.4 is his brother. He was working in the work

shop at the relevant point of time. He identified the accused while

giving evidence in the Court Hall. While he was working in the shop

located in front of the incident occurred, on 02.11.2015 at about 7.00

P.M., three persons came in a car and consuming alcohol by sitting in

the car. While consuming alcohol, there was a heated exchange of

words. In the mean time, two persons came out of the car and one

person taken a stone into his hand and beat on other person on his

head with that stone. The accused took the stone and beat the

deceased. Thereafter, the accused ran way from there. His brother

informed the incident to the police. The police also examined him and

recorded his statement.

KL,J & BRMR,J

17. Perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that PW.3 is

the eye-witness to the incident. He categorically deposed with regard

to the commission of offence committed by the accused. His evidence

is supported by the other ocular testimonies of PWs.4, 5 and 7 in the

manner stated above. PWs. 4, 5, and 7 are not interested witnesses

with any motive to falsely implicate the accused; on the contrary, their

evidence corroborates the testimony of the eye-witness (PW.3)

regarding the commission of the offence by the accused.

18. PW.1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed with regard

to giving Ex.P1 - report with the police on coming to know the

incident and commission of offence by the accused. MO.1 is the said

stone with which the accused beat the deceased. Like-wise, PW.2

deposed that PW.1 is his junior paternal uncle. He does finance

business. On 02.11.2015 at 8.00 P.M., while he was in the house, he

received a phone call from LW.2, mother of the deceased, stating that

the accused committed murder of the deceased. Immediately he

reached the scene of offence and found the dead body was lying on

the road. On his enquiry, PW.3 stated that the accused and the

deceased were quarrelling with each other and though PW.3 tried to

KL,J & BRMR,J

pacify the situation, the accused did not heed his advice and attacked

upon the deceased with a stone and hit him. The police also examined

him and his statement was recorded.

19. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 also supports the evidence

of PW.3 to the extent of giving information by PW.3 to them and

thereafter PW.1 giving Ex.P1 - report to the police and reaching the

scene of offence and conducting investigation by the police etc.

20. PW.6 is a panch witness for scene of offence, panchanama

and seizure of material objects. He deposed that he does cloth

business at Vinayakanagar, Quthbullapur, which is near to the place of

incident. As per instructions of police, he reached the scene of offence

which is situated on 40 feet road at Subash Nagar and noticed a dead

body lying on the road. Adjacent to the dead body, there is granite

stone stained with blood and also find Maruthi Zen Car at a distance

of 5 to 6 feet to the dead body. In his presence, the police taken the

blood stains on a cotton swab and also taken control earth from the

scene of offence and also taken the earth which does not have the

blood and all were seized in his presence. MO.2 is the controlled

KL,J & BRMR,J

earth and MO.3 is the blood stained earth. Ex.P2 is the scene of

offence report and Ex.P3 is the rough sketch.

21. PW.11, the Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station,

deposed with regard to receipt of Ex.P1 - report from PW.1,

registration of the same as in Crime No.970 of 2015 under Section -

302 of IPC and issuance of express FIR and its dispatch to the

concerned Magistrate. He further deposed that during investigation,

he examined PW.1 and the scene of offence as well as dead body.

Then, he recorded the statement of mother of the deceased (LW.2),

PW.2 and PW.3. Then, he got the dead body photographed and

thereafter took steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body by the

doctor. He further deposed that he secured two mediators PW.6 and

LW.10 and in their presence, he conducted scene of offence

panchanama and seized blood stained granite stone (MO.1), collected

blood stains from the granite stone with cotton swab and collected

blood stained earth and also controlled earth of blood under cover of

panchanama (Ex.P2). He also drew the rough sketch of scene of

offence as in Ex.P3. Later, he shifted the dead body to Gandhi

Hospital. Thereafter, on 03.11.2015, he again visited the scene of

offence and examined PW.4, 5, 7 and LW.8 and recorded their

KL,J & BRMR,J

statements. He also took steps for conducting inquest over the dead

body of the deceased and seized MOs.6 to 8. Then, he arrested the

accused on 04.11.2015 and in the presence of PW.9 and LW.14, the

accused confessed to have committed the offence. Pursuant thereto,

the accused led them to his residence, where he recovered blood

stained cloths which he worn at the time of offence and seized which

are MOs.4 and 5 (blood stained blue colour pant & blood stained blue

colour white flowered designed shirt) in the presence of PW.9 and

LW.14. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the concerned

Magistrate.

i) He further deposed that on receipt of post-mortem

examination report and FSL, he laid charge sheet against the accused

for the aforesaid offence.

22. PW.8, panch witness for inquest report, also deposed with

regard to conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

Ex.P4 is the inquest report.

23. PW.9 is also a panch witness for confession-cum-seizure

panchanama of the accused. He is the then Village Revenue Officer,

Jeedimetla. In his presence and in the presence of LW.14, the accused

KL,J & BRMR,J

confessed that on 02.11.2015 at about 6.00 P.M., he had quarreled

with the deceased and in that process; he beat the deceased with a

stone, resulting the death of the deceased on the spot. The reason for

quarrel, the deceased stated that after consuming alcohol, the accused

asked the deceased to drop him where he was picked up, for which the

deceased refused to his request, therefore, quarrel took place among

them, for which the accused took a stone and beat the deceased with

the same and he died on the spot. Pursuant to the said confession, the

accused led them to his house, where they seized MOs.4 and 5. Ex.P5

is the relevant para in confession statement, while Ex.P6 is the seizure

report.

24. PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead

body of the deceased. He deposed that he conducted postmortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased and found ante-

mortem injuries over the deceased body. According to him, cause of

death was by hitting with medium size object. The death was due to

head injury. Ex.P7 is the PME report given by him.

25. Perusal of the said evidence would reveal that PW.3 is the

friend of the deceased and present throughout the incident, and his

KL,J & BRMR,J

evidence clearly narrates the movement of all three i.e., deceased,

accused and PW.3; consumption of alcohol at multiple places; quarrel

over dropping the accused at his house; and the accused pushed

deceased from the car, picked up stone (MO.1), hit on the head of the

deceased and the instantaneous death of the deceased. He also

identified the MO.1 with which the accused beat the deceased. Thus,

PW.3's evidence is direct, natural, consistent and credible. Therefore,

his evidence is reliable. As far as PWs.4, 5 and 7 are concerned, they

are independent eye-witnesses and do not have any personal interest

or motive. Their evidence proves the presence of three persons in the

Car, consuming alcohol and quarrels among them; accused hitting the

deceased with stone; and death occurring on the spot. Therefore, their

evidence is corroborative and they had no motive to falsely implicate

the accused. Their testimonies strengthen PW.3's version. PW.1 &

PW.2 are circumstantial/supporting witnesses. PW.1 (father of the

deceased) gave Ex.P1 - report with the police, who registered a case in

crime and took up the investigation, while PW.2, relate of the

deceased confirms what PW.3 told him. Thus, though they are not

eye-witnesses, their evidence supports the chain of events and

prompts reporting. PW.6, PW.8 and PW.9 are panch witnesses.

KL,J & BRMR,J

Their evidence supports procedural aspects in conducting

investigation and establishes recovery of granite stone (MO.1) and

seizure of incriminating material (MOs.4 & 5). PW.11 is the

Investigating Officer, who registered FIR; conducted investigation,

collected evidence and laid charge sheet. Thus, his evidence also

establishes proper investigation and collection of evidence. PW.10 is

the doctor. He conducted post-mortem examination over the dead

body of the deceased. His findings are that head injury was caused by

blunt object (stone) and the death was due to head injury. Thus, his

evidence fully corroborates ocular evidence.

26. Further, perusal of record would also reveal that the

accused had criminal background. Even in the charge sheet, the

Investigating Officer has shown as many as 21 crimes registered

against him, whereas in the letter dated 02.03.2026 addressed by Sub-

Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station to the Public Prosecutor,

21 crimes have been registered against the accused and the same are

as under:

Sl.No. Crime No./C.C. No. & offences Pending/Disposed of

01. CC No.11/2006 for the offence u/Sec.382 IPC Ended in conviction

02. CC No.12/2006 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC -do-

03. Cr.No.405/2005 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC Un-detected

04. CC No.13/2006 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC Ended in conviction

05. CC No.972/2005 for the offence u/Sec.394 IPC -do-

06. CC No.659/2007 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC Ended in acquittal

KL,J & BRMR,J

07. CC No.677/2007 for the offence u/Sec.394 IPC Ended in acquittal

08. Cr.No.530/2009 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC (PT CC --

No.542/2009)

09. Cr.No.531/2009 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC (PT CC --

No.548/2009)

10. CC No.544/2009 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC Ended in conviction

11. CC No.986/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC -do-

12. CC No.982/2012 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC -do-

13. CC No.980/2012 for the offences u/Sec.448 & 382 IPC -do-

14. Cr.No.573/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC (PT CC --

No.49/2013)

15. CC No.897/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC Ended in conviction

16. CC No.51/2013 for the offences u/Secs.457, 380 & 511 IPC Ended in conviction

17. CC No.984/2012 for the offence u/Sec.382 IPC -do-

18. CC No.705/2012 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC -do-

19. CC No.985/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC -do-

20. SC No.508/2015 for the offence u/Sec.307 IPC Ended in Acquittal

21. CC No.1169/2014 for the offence u/Sec.384 IPC -do-

27. In view of the above, it is clear that the accused had

criminal background. But, under the principles of criminal

jurisprudence and as reflected in provisions under Sections - 53 and

54 of the Indian Evidence Act, bad character or past convictions

cannot be used to conclude that the accused committed the present

offence. In some situations, prior conduct may be looked at indirectly

if the defence claims false implication and good character, then

prosecution may rebut by showing prior convictions. However, every

case must be decided on its own evidence. Therefore, the contention

of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused had criminal

back ground and the same must be considered in this case is

unsustainable.