Allowed

Ijaz Ahmed, Ahmed, Nizamabad Dt and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC12 Nov 2024CRLA/422/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against life imprisonment for murder. The court held that the sole eyewitness's contradictory statement, where he admitted he could not identify the assailants who fled on a scooter during an earlier trial, rendered identification in the present case unreliable and unsafe for conviction.

What did the court decide?

The judgment impugned was set aside and the appellants were acquitted; accused No.2 was released on bail.

Ijaz Ahmed, Ahmed, Nizamabad Dt and Anr., Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was^directed to^{be releasedon bail by the} order of the High Court dated.17-08-2022 in LA.No,1 of 2022ⁱⁿ Crl.A.No.422^of 2016.

¶2

[^341e ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR^JUKANTI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:422 OF 20,I6

¶9

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) & 482 of Cr.P.C.,^againstthe Judgment dated 27 -04-2016^{passed in} S.C.No.'194^{of 2009 on the file of theCourt} of t[e Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{for the Trialof Jubilee Hills Car} Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXlll^{AdditionalChief Judge,} at Hyderabad,

¶10

Between:

¶11

Ijaz Ahmed @ Ahmed, S/o. Babu Bhai,^{RJo. YeddapalliVillage, Nizamabad} District.

¶12

Bandlamuri Benaha @ Anil @ Anil Kumar,^{S/o. B. Siva Narayana, Occ} Dismissed APSP Constabtel R/o. Eraspally Village,^{BodhanMandal,} Nizamabad District.

¶13

...Apellants/Accused No.l & 2

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, rep.^by the^{PublicProsecutor, High Courtof} Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶16

...ResPondenUCom Plainant

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants ; Sri Koka Srinivas^Kumar

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun^{Kumar Doodla, Additional} Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court delivered the following:^Judgment

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEA LNo .422 0F 20L6

¶23

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri ,Justice K.surender)

¶24

1 . 'lhis appeal is filed aggrieverl b1, the judgmen t dated 27.O4.2016^jn S.C.No. 194 of 2OO9, passed by the Ad,litional Metropolitan Sessions Judge !-or The Trial Of Jubibe Hills Car Bomb Illast Case-cum Additional Family Court-cum_ XXIII Additional Chief Judge, IJyderabad, convicti ng the appellanrs/ar cusecl Nos,1 an r.l 2 for thc offcnce uncier Section 302 read u,ith 34 of IpC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment lor life. Further, they were also convrcted for the ofl'encc itnder Secti(n 27(2) ol Indian Arms A,:t and sentenced to Jndergo rigorous imprisonmcnt for serron lears. Both the sentcnccs sha_ll run concurrentlv.

¶25

The case of the prosecu.tion is that accused Nos.3 to 5 hired accusc.d Nos. I and 2 to commit the murdet. of pW1,s father (hereinafter referred to as deceased,). Accorclrng to PW1, on 2,LO6.j999, the deceaseci called him to the shop in the er,.:ning h.urs, hc went there and handed ovr:r itne sealed packet to Xeshirreni'lravels ancl carnc back orr his Honrla. In the evening, he instructeci oile person namelv Mr. Suresh to

¶26

¶27

clean it. Thereafter,^{deceasedwanted to go and meet arr} Advocate in his^{ofhce and he sat on the Kinetic Honda'} Accused Nos.1^{and 2 came on Bajaj Scooterfrom behind and} within no ti.me,^{accusedNo 1 fired ot-r the neck of the} deceasedfrombackside.Onseeingthesaidincident'PW1 chased the^{scooter ti11 Kaleshwar Rao Market' but the said} persons fled. He^{came back and took the deceased to hospital} and lodged^comPlaint.

¶28

The sard complarnt^{was investigated by the Police and} after completion^{of investigation,the Policefiled chargesheet} against accused^{Nos'1 to 8'Case wasnumberedas} S.C.No. 174 of^{2OO2.Since the appellants/ acc used Nos land} 2 were absconding,^{the case was split up and re-numbered as} S.C.No.194^{of 2009 against the appellants'AccusedNos'3 to} 8 were tried^{by the learnedSessionsJudge in S'C'No 174 of} 2OO2 arrd oll^{account of hostility of the witnesses including} Nos.3 to^{8were acquitted Thereafter'} PWi, accused appellants^were apprehended^{and tried by the learned} SessionsJudgevideS.C.No.lg4of2oog(splitupcasefrom S.C.No.174^{ol 2OO2)}

¶29

¶30

¶31

Learnecl Sessions Judge placing relian.ce on the evidence of PW I u'ho is the sole eve witness to thc incident and son of the deceasecl recorded conviction of appellants.

¶32

The onlr, ground raised bv the learned counsel 1br the appellants is that PW1 is the only eye witness to rncident. In fact, he had given his statement in S.C.No. 174 of 2OO2 when Accused Nos..3 ro g r,r,ere tried that he dicl not witness the persons u,ho had shot his lather. Once the statemcltt u,as made in the earlier Sessions case, Lhe version given in the present case cannot be relied on, more specifically, wh en the statement macle earlier was admitted by the pW1 himself.

¶33

On the other hand, Iearned public prose cutor rvould submit that the death was on account of gunshot, which is evident from the F-SL report and post_mortem proceedings Hou.ever, w,ith regard to the question posed b,r,. thc Courr as to hou. the evide nce of pW 1 u,ould be admissible in the background of trx.D2 statement made in S.C.No. 174 of 2002, there was no ans\ rcr

¶34

Having gone through the record, relevant part o1. statement uide Ex.D2, is extracted hereunder.

¶35

I OCtl-e r(..1 lhe parcel and was returning to Lhc shop. I he-arcl a sound. I sa\r' a qroup of pcrsons

¶36

¶37

standing around my father.^{I saw some body going} on a scooter near my father.^{I went to the place} pushing the persons of the group to^{Lheplace where} my father fel1. My father^was lylng^{in a poolof} blood. I went but could^{not see the persons going on} the scooLer. Two^{persons sped awayon the scooter.} S.I. of One town P.S.^{cameand declared my fathe r} dead. I saw the two^{personswho went away on the} scooter on the date^{of the accident, in the one town} P.S. on a Sunday night^{in the monthof May, 20OO I} identified them before the^{JudicialMagistrateon} 27.O5.2000.'

¶38

In the present castl,^{when PW1 was conlrontedwith the}

¶39

said statcmenl, he statccl^{as lbllows:}

¶40

"lt is true that^{Iwas examinedas witnesstn} S.C.No. 174 of 2OO2^{on the file of this Court as PW1} (which is a Split-up czrse^{agalnst A4 to AB) The} evidencc of the^{wrtness recordedby thc Courtin} earlier which^{was obtainedby wayof r:ertifrccl copy} and it was shown^{to the witness and suggested- on} perusal, the witness stated^{the evidenceis belongs} to him which is^{marked as Ex.D2 lt is true that} whatever I stated^{in Ex,D2before the Courtis true "}

¶41

g. Admittediy, PW I deposed^{befbre theCourton} 06.O4.2OlO in^{S.C.No.174 ol 2002, wherein,he specifically} stated that two^{persons came on the scooter, shot at his} father and flecl^{as such he could not identify them However'} he identified^{them before the learned Magistrate'He} specifrcally stated^{that whenhe went there, he could not see} the person^{going on scooter. Accordingto the prosecution'}

¶42

ti.,

¶43

¶44

accused Nos.l and 2 are lhe^persons who had^{come on the} scooter, fired and shot his father and fled.

¶45

Though ir is mentioned that he identified accuse d^Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate in^t he^Test Identification Parade that $'as conducted on 27.05.2000, in the background of the statement of PWi that he did not see the persons u'ho lr.ere on the scooter, no evidcntrar v value can be attached in Test Identihcation Parade Proceedings.

¶46

Learned Sessions Judge had not discussed the specific admission of PW1 u,hat he stated earlier in the year 2010 that he could not identify the assailants who were on the scooter. The question of identifuing accused Nos. 1 and 2 all er the period of fivc vears in the present Scssions Casc czLnnot be beiieved. 'ihe r,r,itness/PW1, who is a self condemned rvitness, had denied witnessing the assailants on the scooter at the earliest point of time in the year 2010, rvhen he was examined rn Sessions Case against accused Nos..l to 8. Holvever, he stated after five years that he cart iderrtify the accused. Sur:h self contradictory evidence of PWI rvho is the sole e],e witncss grving dilferent vcrsion at diffcr<:nL time cannot form basis to convict lhe appellants. Therrefrre, the appellants succeed and the appeal is 1iable to be allou,erl.

¶47

¶48

¶49

1 I i l j 1 I i , I I { 1 .l ni.

¶50

^in: '!iri,.1.]&,.t- i'

¶51

¶52

Criminal Appeal^{is allowedand the judgment dated} 27.04.2O16 in S.C.No.194^{of 2OO9, passed by the Additional} Metropolitan^{SessionsJ udgeFor The Trial Of} 'Iubilee^Hills Car Bomb Blast^{Case-cum-Additionall"amily Court-cum-} Xxlll Aclditional^{Chief Judge, Hyderabad,is hereby set aside'} Since Lhe appellant/^{accused No 1 is already on bail' no} further orders^{are required. It is informed that earlier' this} Court had^{granted interimbail to appellant/ accusedNo'2} and. presently^{in jail. AccusedNo'2 sha11 be releasedon bail}

¶53

forthwilh, if^{he is not required in any othcrcase}

¶54

SD/. K SRINIVASA JOINT^REGIS

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The^{AdditionalMetropolitan Sessions+dSSfT the Trial of Jubilee Hills} Car Bomb^{Blast case-culr-n'aOii"""fia'iityCo"t-c'm-XXlll Additional} ili"i:;;;; ;^{Hvderabad(with records'ir anv-).}

¶59

rhe^{Vt Additional o,i"t rvrSirip"iii; Mr;i;trri;,'ilampallv,Hvderabad(with}

¶60

, i"rT3,i;li,illlo"nq^{c"nt'"tPrison' cherlapallvJail' Medchal-Malkaisiri}

¶61

Oi.tti.tieY SPecial Messenoer)

¶62

Two ccs^{to the public pro"?ltor,High court for the state of relanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶63

Hvderabad [OUT]

¶64

s. AIr:, #il^{i;-Ko'tt' s'iniu" Kumar' Advocate [oPUc]}

6, Two^{CD CoPies}

ADK

HIGH GOURT

DATED:1211112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.422 of 2016

ALLOWING THE CRLA

1H c
Y
fl
r
f,
I
(-l' lii iil
..5".
)
'S: -
f{

Ijaz Ahmed, Ahmed, Nizamabad Dt and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ijaz Ahmed, Ahmed, Nizamabad Dt and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kandikanti Manikata Goud, Saroornagar and 2 Otrs., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Radghagoni Nagabhushanam, Medak Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Allapuri Namdev, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Bhukya Ramu, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Mangapatnam Hanmaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.