Sudhamsh Netha , Sunny, Secunderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC18 Feb 2025CRLA/381/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder-for-hire acquittal; circumstantial evidence; five golden principles/panchsheel; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 applied; Chadrabhan Sudam Sanap - CDR without Section 65B certification eschewed; test identification parade Rule 34 Criminal Rules of Practice; benefit of doubt; acquittal of husband and hired killer; Sections 302, 380, 201 r/w 120-B IPC; Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; S.C.No.14 of 2015; Crl.A.Nos.381 & 464 of 2017; Telangana High Court; decision date 18-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Appeals allowed; judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.14 of 2015 dated 14.02.2017 set aside and the appellants acquitted; appellant/A1 in jail directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case; A2's bail bonds stand discharged. ¶131

Sudhamsh Netha , Sunny, Secunderabad., Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶131

Issue for consideration

Whether the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution - strained relations/motive, CDR contact between A1 and A2, purchase of Restyl tablets, presence of A2 at the scene, injuries on A2, and the recoveries of gold ornaments, key and cash - formed a complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence so as to satisfy the five golden principles (panchsheel) and sustain the conviction. +4 more

¶130

Court's answer

The prosecution was bound to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence; in the present case every circumstance gives rise to doubt, such doubtful circumstances cannot form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards guilt, and in view of the discrepancies in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.

¶130

Ratio / Principle

The circumstance of frequent quarrels/harassment between A1 and the deceased rests on statements of PWs 1 to 3 which they admitted in cross-examination were improvements over complaint Ex.P1 and their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the omissions were proved during the Investigating Officer's cross-examination, and the Investigating Officer collected no documentary evidence of the dowry articles alleged; hence that circumstance is doubtful.

¶90

Key takeaways

The call detail records, admittedly filed without Section 65B certification as required under the decision in Chadrabhan Sudam Sanap, cannot be made the basis to conclude that there was communication between A1 and A2; consequently the alleged communication and plan between A1 and A2 stands unproved.ratio¶98
The evidence of P.W.6 that A2 went upstairs and came down on the day of the incident is suspicious and appears planted: he claims to have waited near the watchman's room without contacting anyone although he had no telephone numbers, P.W.4 (watchman's wife) who was nearby did not state either his presence or A2's visit, the police showed him A2's photograph before identification, and no test identification parade was conducted.ratio¶111

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common judgment dated 18-02-2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana (K. Surender and Anil Kumar Jukanti JJ.) allowing Criminal Appeal Nos. 381 & 464 of 2017 and setting aside the judgment dated 14.02.2017 of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C.No.14 of 2015, whereby A1 Amer Mohammed Jamal and A2 Sudhamsh Netha @ Sunny had been convicted under Sections 302, 380, 201 r/w 120-B IPC for the murder of A1's wife on 21.06.2013, staged as a robbery. Testing the wholly circumstantial case on the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court found every circumstance doubtful: the CDRs showing A1-A2 contact lacked Section 65B Evidence Act certification and could not prove communication (following Chadrabhan Sudam Sanap); the harassment motive rested on statements improved over Ex.P1 and Section 161 statements; P.W.6's sighting of A2 at the flat appeared planted, with no test identification parade and the police having shown a photograph; gold ornaments M.Os.2-6 were never test-identified nor shown to the family; key M.O.8 was not linked to A1's flat and the cash of Rs.2,70,200/- with A2 could not be presumed to be A1's payment; spindle-shaped injuries indicated a double-edged weapon unlike the single-edged M.O.9, with no trace or smell of the alleged insecticide; A2's injuries went unexplained; and fingerprint/dog-squad assistance was never obtained. Benefit of doubt was extended and both appellants acquitted; A1 was directed to be released forthwith and A2's bail bonds discharged.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER rHE HoNouRABLE sRr ,,i$?"= AN'L K,MAR JUKAN.

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 381 AND 46 F 2017

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 381 OF 2017

¶8

BAIL SLIP: The Appellant / Accused No 2 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 20-09-2023 made in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.A.No.3B1 ol 2017

¶9

Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgmetn dated 14-022017 made in S.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the ll.Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sudhamsh Netha @ Sunny, S/o. Dharam Sagar, Aged about 26^years, Occ. Salesman, Ceramic Owrld, Miyapur Rl/o.^'10-3-1 1'l , Teachers Colony, East Manedpalli, Secunderabad

¶12

...Appellant / Accused No 2

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor (TS) High Court at Hyderabad

¶15

...Respondents / Complainant

¶16

CR|MINAL APPEAL NO: 464 OF 2017

¶17

Appeal under Section 37a (2) ot Cr.P.C. against the Judgmetn^dated14-02- 2017 made in S.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Court of^{the Il Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad.

(

Between

Amer Mohammed Jamal, S/o. Mohd Jamal, Age 33 years, Occ^pvt Service Rt/o. H.No 10-2-90/4, Plot No BB, Road no 3, West Marredpatty, Secunderabad

¶22

...Appellant / Accused No 1

¶23

AND

¶24

The State of l-elangana, Rep. by^public prosecutor, Hyderabad

¶25

/ complainant

¶26

counser for rhe Apperant : in Both the Cases Sri^y Ratna ";:;tjt"""t Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla in Both the Cases Additional Public Prosecutor

¶27

The Court delivered the following Common Judgment :

¶28

)

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ANIL KT'MARJI'KANTI}

¶30

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{Nos.381alnd'464 OF 2OL7}

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶32

Criminal Appeal^{No.464 of 2OL7 was liled by ,{1 and Criminal} Appeal No.381 of 2Ol7^{was hled by 42.}

¶33

2.AlandA2wereconvictedfortheoffencesunderSections3O2, 380, 2O1 rlw l2O-B^{of IPC vide judgment in S'C'No'L4 of 2Ol5} d.ated 14.02.2017^{passed by the II Additiona-lMetropolitanSessions} Judge, Hyderabad.

¶34

3.Sinceboththeappealsarequestioningtheconvictionofthe appellants/A I and^{A2, the appeals are heard together and disposed} off by way of this^{CommonJudgment.}

¶35

Briefly, the case of^{the prosecution is that, on 2l'06'2013' at} 3:OO P.M, PWl/complainant^{lodged a complaintstating that his} sister, Shagufta^{Shereen(deceased), along with her husband' Amer} Mohammed (A1), and^{their minor daughter, have been are residing} floor, Anjali^Apartments' at H, No. 6-3-566 l23lC,3rd Venkataramala Colony,^{Anandnagar Colony,Khairtabad' for the}

¶36

¶37

tII t!:&{.I !I I i i I

¶38

I I

¶39

¶40

past eight months.^{Around 1O:3O AM, his brother-in-law(A1) left for} his ofhce, and^{approximately at 1:55 PM, P'W'1received a phone} call from 41, informing^{that PWl'ssister had been stabbedto death} andaskedPw.ltoComeimmediately.Uponreceivingthe information,^{PW1 t-ushed to the house and found that his brother-} inJaw/Al was^{pr€:sent.He saw his deceased sister lying dead on} the bed with stab^{injuries on her throat.He also noticedthat empty} jewellery boxes alrl other items^{were scattered across the r:oom'}

¶41

5.P.W.lfurtherstatedthatsomeunknownpersonshadlikely stabbed the^{decezrsed with knivesand fled after stealing a gold} necklace set^{(bracelet and earrings) weighingabout 2 tolas' a gold} chain weighing^{abrlut1 tola, and cash amounting to <2} '7O,OOO^{I - '}

¶42

Upon receiving^{the complaint from PW1, PW2l ,Detective} Inspector of Police,^{Panj aguttaPS, registereda case in Cr' No'} 442/2013 under^{flections 3O2 and 38O of the IPC and commenced} the investigation

¶43

T.Duringthec.curseofinvestigation,PW2l,alongwitlrthestafi visited the crime r;cene and,^{in the presenceof mediators P.ws. I 1}

¶44

¶45

)

¶46

aIldl2,hadthescenephotographedwitlrtheassistanceofP.W.14. P.W.21 seized a^{blood-stainedbed sheet and pillowcover' After} conducting an^{inquest in the presenceof PW13 and LW16' the} deceased's^{body was sent to the mortuaryat Gandhi Hospital'} Secunderabad,^{where itwas preserved' On 22'06'2013' P'W'IS} conducted an autopsy^{on the deceased'sbody in the presence of} PW13, LWs 16^{and, 17. At the mortuary'PW21 collected the} deceased,s blood-stained^{clothes. PW15 photographedthe} deceased's^{body during the autopsy'}

¶47

P.W.21 then^{securedthe presence of PWs 1to 3(the} deceased'sbrother,father,and'mother),circumstantialwitnesses LWs 4, 6, 8, and^{PWs 4 to 10 and 19, as well as photographersPWs} 14 and 15.^{Their statements wererecordedin detail'}

¶48

P.W. 1 spoke^{about frequent petty quarrelsbetween his} brother-in-1aw/A1,^{and the deceased' over trivial family matters and} expressed^{suspicion about A1's involvement inthe deceased's} death. PWs^{2 and 3 corroboratedPW1's statement'P'W'6'a relative} of the deceased,^{stated that he had seen Sudhamsh Netha/A2'} visiting the^{deceased'shouse' He further mentionedthat A2 was}

¶49

- - a. !---j

¶50

¶51

carrying a bag^{while going upstairs and was later seen leaving} hurriedly with the^{same bag.}

¶52

10.P.W.77,Chir:fMedicalOfficer,examinedA.2andnotednail injuries allegedly^{sustained during a struggle with the deceased.} PW. 17 issued^{a mr:dical certihcate.}

¶53

P.W. 18, the^{doctorwho conducted the autopsy,documented} the injuries and^{opined that the estimatedtime of death was} between 12 to 24^{hours before the post-mortemexaminalion(PME).} The cause of death^{was attributedto multiplestab injuries to the} neck, combined^{with organophosphate,alinsecticicle poison'} L.W.27, Assistant^{Directorof APFSL,examined the mater:ia,lobjects} seized from the^{,lrime scene and the deceased'sbody' The FSL} report d,afed 17.10.2013^{stated that item nos. 1 to 9 werr: examined} and human blooi.^{was detected on them'The blood group on item} nos.l,2,and,4togwasdeterminedtobe'AB,'whiletheblood grouponitemno.3couldnotbeidentified.PW2lalsocollected Al's mobile phone^{call data. On 23.06'2013, at 4:30 P'M' A'1 was} apprehended at his^{residence in west Marredpally,Secunderabad'} In the presence cf^{mediatorsPW2O and Lw27, A1',sconfessional}

¶54

¶55

)

¶56

statement was recorded, wherein he a-llegedly admitted to^plalning

¶57

the deceased's murder by hiring a killer. Based on A1's confession,

¶58

PW21 seDed the following:

¶59

One black Samsung Duos mobile phone (Dual SIM)^with IMEI Nos. 353576058322290 and 353577058322298 and SIM No. 9966853700.

¶60

One black Samsung Galaxy Note GTN 70OO mobile^phone with SIM No. 9052285551 and IMEI No. 382935054826046.

¶61

One gold chain weighing 8.860 grams.

¶62

One gold ring weighing 1.630 grams.

¶63

One pair of gold ear studs weightng4.720^grarns.

¶64

One gold black beads chain weighing 9.370^grams.

¶65

t2. Pursuant to A1's confession, PW2 1 apprehended ,{2^on

¶66

23.06.2013 and, in the^presence of^PW2O and^{LW21, recorded A2's} confessional statement

¶67

The investigation established that A1 married^{the deceasedin} 2OO8, and deceased gave birth to a daughter.^{There were frequent} petty quarrels between ,\1 and the deceased over family^matters. Unable to pacifu his wife, A1 allegedly^{deviseda plan to eliminate} her by hiring a killer. As per A1's plan, on 3.6.2013,^{he purchaseda} Vodafone SIM card bearing No. 9642193910^{for Rs. 20O in the} name of Jamal, using his driving license^as ID^{proof. Subsequently,} A1 contacted A2, explained his plan, ald^{.A2 allegedlyagreedto kill}

¶68

¶69

the deceased ir-'.^{exchangefor Rs. 3,OO,OOO/-, towhichA1} consented. In furtherance^{of their criminal conspiracy,A1 procured} Restyl 0.25 and Mypspaz^{10 tablets from PW10's medica-l shop,} altegedly intendirg to induce^{the deceased into deepsleep. Further,} A1 allegedly obtained^{poison to ensure that the deceased would be} unable to resist^{A2's attack. As per their plan, A1 a'llegedly} administered Restyl^{0.25, MypspazlO tablets, and poison to the} deceased. once the^{deceased lost consciousness,A1 informedA2} about the same through^{his VodafoneSIM No' 9642193910and} allegedly instructed^{A2 to proceedwith the killing}

¶70

t4. On21.6.2013, A,2 entered^{the house and allegedly stabbed the} deceased to death^{with aknife before taking awav her gold} ornaments to mislead^{the police. After allegedly committingthe} murder, A2 informed^{A1 throughVodafoneSIM No' 96421939LO'} Following Al's instructions,^{A2 destroyed the SIM card to avoid} being traced by the^{police. A2 subsequently handed over the} deceased's gold crnaments^{to 41, whichwere later seized from Al's} possession. Base:d on^{the investigation,A1 and -A2 were charge-}

¶71

¶72

sheeted for offences under^{Sections3O2, 2Ol, 380, and 12O(B)of} IPC.

¶73

tearned Sessions Judge^{convicted the appellantsmainlyon} the basis of circumstantial^{evidence. According to the learned} Sessions Jud,ge, P.Ws.1^{to 3, P.W.6 and P'W'S witnessesand the} recoveries which were^{effected from A1 and A2 make out a case} against both the aPPellants.

¶74

The frve golden^{principles constituting panchsheelto prove a} case based on circumstantial^{evidence were summed up in sharad} Birdhichand sarda v.^{State of Maharashtra r, which readsas}

¶75

follows:

¶76

"153. A close analgs[s^{ofthis decisionutould stnutthat the follotuing} rnnditions must^be fulfilted^{beJore a cose against an occusedcon be said to be} fully^establkted:

¶77

(1) the circumstances from uhich^{the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn slnuld} be fully establisfed. It^{mag be noted here thatthis Court indicated that tle} ciranmstonces concerned^{"mtstor slauld"and not "maA be" established'There} is not onlA a^{grommatical but a tegaldistinction betlueen "mag be proued" and} omust be or shttuld. be proued." as was held bA this Court in Shiuaji Sahabroo Bobode u.^{Stateof Mahoroshtra} [(1973)^{2 SCC793 : 1973 SCC(Cri)1033 :} 1973 Crl Ll^{17831 ttherethe obseruationswere mode:ISCC paro19' p' 8O7:} SCC Pfl^p. 1oa7l

'(19841⁴ sccⁱ¹⁶

'a,1'

"Certainly, it: is a pimary pinciple that the accused must be and not merelA maA be ryiltg before a court can conuict and the mentol distance betlueen'mag be' and 'must be'is long and diutdes uague conjectures from sure conclusion:;. '

¶82

(2) the facts sc established should be consistent onlA uith the hgpothesis of the guilt of the x:ansed, tnt is to saA, theA should not be explahable on ang other hgpothesi:; e-xcept thot the acansed is guiltg,

¶83

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusiue nahre and tenden cy,

¶84

(4) theg shoulcl <,-xclude euery possible hgpotlrcsis except the one to be proued, and

¶85

(5) there must b<,- a chain of euidence so utmplete as not to leaue anq reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent uith the innocence of the accused and must shotr that in all tuman probability the act must haue been done bg tlne acatsed."

¶86

According 1.o the prosecution, there were frequent quarrels in between A1 and the deceased over family issues. Unabb to bear the frequent fights, r\1 planned to eliminate his wife/deceased by hiring killer/A2. The e'"idence of quarrel, in between the deceased and .A1, is stated by P.W. i /brother of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 parents of the deceased. A<:cording to P.Ws.2 and 3, at the time ol marriage, 27 tulas of gold, Rs.1.OO lakh cash was given, apart from furniture. When the deceased was pregnant, she was neglected by her husband/A1, as such, deceased was taken to the house of P.Ws.2 arld 3. The harassment continued even after the birth ,rf the child. In the year,2071, A.1 and the deceased moved to Balgalore. The

¶87

¶88

'7.

¶89

deceased used to inform P.W.2 about^{frequentfrghts with A1. In the} year 2OL2, A1 and deceased shifted^{back to Hyderabad and stayed} at West Marredpally. Even^{there also, harassmentcontimred'} According to P.Ws.2 and 3, on^{18.06.2013, the deceased called} P.W.2 stating that A1 had beaten^{her and the deceasedrequested} PW.2 to take her. P.W.2 then^{assuredthe deceasedthat they were} planning to visit Hyderabad on^{21.06-2013and sort out issues'}

¶90

During the course of cross-examination^{of P.Ws.1to 3, they} admitted that the statements^{regardingstrained relationin between} the deceased and A.1, were^{an improvement from the complaint-} Ex.P1 and from their Section^{161 Cr.P.C statements. The omissions} regarding the harassment^{was proved duringcross examinationof} the Investigating offrcer.^{The Investigatingofhcer duringhis} evidence deposed that he^{did not collect any documentaryevidence} to support the claim^{of P.ws.lto 3 that gold, householdarticles} and cash were^given at^{the time of marriage'}

¶91

lg. The incident^{happened on 2l-06'2013' Around 3'00 p'm,} p.w. 1/brother of the deceased lodged complaint^with the^{police. In} the complaint, he^{stated that some unknown persons stabbed his}

¶92

¶93

sister with knife and^{blade after committing theft of gold ornaments.} p.w.2l/investigating ofhcer having received complaint. went^{to the} scene where A1^{,;ras present. In the inquest that was held at 4'OO} p.m on the same day, it is^{mentionedthat unknownpersonshad} committed murder. Though^{P.ws.land 2 stated before the court} that they suspected^{A1 of being responsiblefor the rrLurder of the} deceased, however, the^{same was not stated till conc.tusionof the} inquest proceedings,^{at 7:OOPm.}

¶94

The police did not^{take the help of any fingerprintexpert or} collect any clues from the^{scene. InEx.P6, scene of offence} panchanama, it is stated that the^{scientifrcofficer', hngerprint} experts, Dog squad and^{other policeofficials visited the sceneof} offence, however,^{P.W.21 did not cite any of these: officials as} witnesses.

¶95

According to the^{prosecution case, A1 contactedA2 on} 03.06.2Oi3 a-fter he^{purchased VodafoneSIM card bearing} No.9642 193910 and,^{contacted A2 on 8008976854. According to} the prosecution, after^{the incident, Aland ,{2 made phonecalls,}

¶96

71,

¶97

contacted one another through said^{phone numbersand after the} murder of tJle deceased, SIM cards were destroyed.

¶98

In the case of Chaadrabhan SudamSanaP v. State^of Maharashtra2, t]ne Hon'ble Three Judge bench of^{the Supreme} Court held that, an electronic evidence in the^{form of CDR without} any certihcation under Section 65-8 of the^{EvidenceAct has to be} eschewed from consideration. In the^{present case,admittedly,} Section 65-8 certifrcation was not^{hled, to rely on the call data} record hled by the prosecution. The link to^{show that A,1 and .A2} contacted one another, is the call detail^{records,which cannotbe} made basis to conclude that there^{was communicationbetween,{1} and A2.

¶99

One more circumstance of^{the prosecutioncase is that ,{1} purchased Restyl 0.25 and Myospaz, each^{10 tablets fromP.W. 1O's} medical shop. The said tablets^{were administered to the deceased} by A1 and also insecticide^{poison. Thereafter, he ca-lled up A2, who} had key to the flat. A.2 then went^{to the flat around11.0O a'm and} committed murder of the deceased.^{P.W.6 was waiting in the cellar}

¶100

'72025^{Lawsuit(SC)117}

¶101

¶102

of the building complex^{when A2 went upstairsand camedownon} the date of the incident.

¶103

The cause of^{death, accordingto the postmortem examination} doctor/P.W.¹⁸ are^{the multiplestab injuries to the neck associated} with organo phosphate^{insecticide poison' P'W'18 deposed in his} cross-examination that,^{organo phosphatepoisoningcases have} classical smel1 which^{can be detected at the time of postmoftem.} However, in the^{postmortem report, it is mentioned that t'lrere was} no specihc smell^{present. The prosecutionhas not come up with} any evidence to show^{from where the insecticide poison was} purchased by A1.

¶104

P.W.1O was^{examined by the prosecutionto sterte about A1} purchasing Restvl tablets from^{his shop. P.w. 10 stated that there} will be a duplicate copy of^{prescription which has to be retained} with the shop. However,^{no such copy of prescription was seized} from the shop. Ex.PS^{was hled by the prosecution and marked} through P.W.1O. According to^{P.W. 10, hesold tabletson} 11.06.2013 to Amar Mohd.Jamal,^{however, he did not identi$rthe} person purchasing the tablets.

¶105

¶106

The prosecution relied on^{t-he evidenceof P'W'5 to show that} ..{2 was present at the scene on^{the date of the incident,i'e',} 21.06.2013. According to^{P.W.6, he went to the house on} 2L.O6.2O13 at about 11.00^{a.m and knocked the door of the} deceased. However, there^{was no response- He came down and} started waiting for the deceased^{expecting that she would return.} Meanwhile, he saw A2^{gorngupstairs and coming down, 15 to 20} minutes thereafter. Then,^{P.W.6 again went upstairs and on seeing} that there was no response,^{he went away.PW.6, further stated that} he attended the cremation^{of the deceasedon 23'06 '2013 or} 24.06.2013. On television,^{he saw A1 and A2 rn a press meet who} were accused in the murder^{case. P.w.6 then identihed ,{2 as the} person who went upstairs on^{the day when he was waiting near the} apartment. Accordingly,^{he went to the- police on 29'06'2013 and} gave statement that ,{2 was^{the person who went upstairsand} returned while he^{was waiting in the apartment parking area' In the} cross-examination, P.w.6^{stated that he is a residentof Agapura,} which is at a distance of^{11 km. from Al',s flat. He does not know} the telephone numbers^{of the deceased,A1, or P'W'2' PW'6 further} stated that he was^{waiting inthe parking area' There was a}

¶107

¶108

watchman room. He did not try to deliver parcel to the neighbors or the watchman. P.W.6 further stated that he does not remember on which TV channel he saw A1 and A2. The police, according to P.W.6, had shown him photograph of ,A.2 before he was asked to identify A2. No test identifrcation parade was conducted .

¶109

P.W.6 was examined on 29.06.2013. Though he s1_ated that he attended cremation of the deceased on 23.06.2013 or 24.06.2013, he did not give cletails of any person going up arrd coming down while he was '"1'aiting in the parking a-rea, near the watchman,s room. P.W.4 is the wife of the watchmal of the said building. According to her, she was on the ground floor. Around 11.00 a.m, and at about 12.:lO, the daughter of the deceased retr_rrned home. Normally, the deceased used to come down and pick up her daughter. However, she did not come down, and as such, p.W.4 took the daughter to the flat. Since there was no response near the flat, she called A1. A1 informed P.W.4 thathe would be backin 2O minutes. A,1 returned and found the deceased dead. Immediately, three Doctors were called, who were in the apartment, who came to the scene and checked the deceased and found her dead. In the

¶110

¶111

cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that there was a^watchmal quarter in the parking a-rea and any visitor to the apartment would necessarily pass through the quarter of the watchman and if any stranger comes, they will question them regarding the^{purpose of} visit. P.W.4 curiously did not state about either the^presence of P.W.6 in the parking area where she was waiting near^watchman room, or about the visit of 42. P.W.6 stated that^he did^{not have t]le} number of the deceased or A1 or PW.2. His^{presence gives rise to} any amount of doubt since he asserts that he was at the^{scene near} the apartment without making any call and^states that^{he waitedin} the parking area besides watchman room. It is an^apartment complex and normally, there would be^{severalpersons going up and} down through lift or through stairs. It is not^{known as to how P.W.6} was in a position to identiff A2 as the^{person who went upstairs} and came down. There are several flats in the^{apartmentcomplex.} The evidence of P.W.6, in the background of^{the evidenceof PW.4 is} suspicious and appears to have been^planted.

¶112

2a. The prosecution relied on the injuries^{received by A2 to} suggest that he attacked the deceased^{and in the process, received}

¶113

-tb

¶114

simple injuries on his body. P.W. 17 is the Doctor, u,ho examined A2 on 24.06.2013 at 12.15 p.m. Wound certificate-Ex.P2O was also issued by P.W. 17. The cause of death of the deceased was organo phosphate poison and stab injuries. According to prosecution case, Restyl tablets rvere also administered by A1. If at all insecticide poison and Resty' tablets were administered, it is not known as to why no signs of such insecticide were found during postmortem examination. If a person is administered both sleeping tablets and a-lso insecticide poison either such person would be unconscious or would take steps to vomit poison. At the scene, no such evidence of poison was present during panchanama. The proseculion failed to explain as to how A,2 received injuries in the background of the deceased being administered with sleeping pills and insecticide poison. At the time of observation of dead body, the trands of the deceased were tied, as seen in Ex.P2I /postmortem examination report. The said factor raises doubt regarding prosecution,s claim that A2 was injured by the deceased when he attacked her. Admittedly, nothing was collected from the nails of the deceased to know whether anl,.thing was embedded in between the finger nails.

¶115

¶116

The weapon seized ftorn^{A2 is a vegetable cutter knife with} sharpness on one side.^{P.W. 18 deposed that stab injuries} sustained by the deceased^{are of spindle shape and w'ith cleancut} margins. The postmortem examination^{Doctor was not shownthe} knife Mo9 which was^{seizedfrom A2 to supportthe version of the} prosecution that the injuries^{were caused by Mo9. P.w. 18 admitted} that both the hands of the^{deceasedwere tied with a pink and blue} chunni. P.W. 18 admitted^{that the spindle shaped injurieswith} clean cut margins are^{caused by a double edged weapon' The said} admission of the Doctor^{regardingthe injuries that would be} possible with a double^{edged weapon and absenceof any smell of} insecticide, creates suspicion^{of the correctness of the claim of the} prosecution that the^{deceasedwas administered insecticide poison} and also stabbed with^{MO9 which has a sharp edge on only one} side.

¶117

30.Theprosecutionfurtherreliesontherecoveriesthatwere effected at the instance^{of A1 and A2. Alwas apprehendedon} 23.06.2013. P.W.2O,^{independentperson was asked to act as a} witness to the confession and^{seizure of A1' A1 was in the house}

(

and in the presence of P.W.20 and other police personnel, he confessed to the crime and produced gold ornaments r,., hich are gold chain, gold black bead chain, two ear studs, one gold ring, one gold bracelet, which are MOs.2 to 6, respectively. A,1 led the police to ttre house of A2 at trast Marredpally. A2 was present in the house when A1 and others u'ent there. A'2 was questioned and his confession was a-lso recorded. MO9- knife was seized along with cash of Rs.3.OO lakh, blood stained clothes, phone, and key, which according to the prosecution is the key to the flat of A 1 .

¶122

P.W.20, independent witness to the confession and seizure, in his cross-examination admitted that he is having acquaintarce with the family of P.Ws.l to 3 as they used to live in the same colony. P.W.2O further admitted that he went to the Court two or three times and on atl the occasions, he had interacted with p.Ws.1 and 2

¶123

The gold ornaments, MOs.2 to 6 which were seized at the instalce of A1, were neither subjected to test identification parade in accorda,ce with Rule 34 of criminal Rules of practice, nor shown to P.Ws.1 to 3 to identify that the jewelry was that of the deceased-

¶124

¶125

I t

¶126

According to the case of^{the prosecution,A1 offered Rs'3'00} lakhs to A2 to kill his wife.^{According to the plan, A1 would} administer poison and^{sleepingtablets, al1d thereaft er, A2 would} enter into the flat and^{commit murderof the deceased'The key-} MO8 was seized at the instance^{of A2. At the time of seizure, there} were two keys with A2^{and in the Court only one key was marked} bearing No.1142 163.^{However, the number of the key was not} mentioned in Ex.P27,^{which is the seDurepanchanama'Though} P.W.7 was examined,^{who is the ownerof the flat, MO8 was not} shown to him. The^{police ought to have taken the key to the flat and} opened the lock of the^{flat inthe presence ofindependent} witnesses. In the absence^{of alry such exerciseundertaken,and the} owner, P.W.7 not identifying^{that MO8 was the key of A1's flat, it} cannot be assumed that^{the key MO8 is'the key to the flat of A1'} Another circumstance is^{the seizure of cash of Rs.2,7O,2OO/- from} A2. lt is the case of prosecution^{that A1 withdrew cash of Rs' 3} lakhs. It cannot be assumed^{that the cash found in the house of ,{2} was handed over by Al to^{A2, in tl.e absence of the prosecution} failing to prove communication^{in between A1 and 42'}

I I

The prosecution IS bound to prove each and every crrcumstance beryond reasonabre doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, every circumstalce gives rise to doubt, as alreacly discussed above. Such doubtful circumstances cannot form a complete chain, which would unerringly point towards guiit of the appellants. In view of the discrepancies in the case of the prosecution, beneht of doubt is extended to the appellants.

¶131

In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No. 14 of 2015, dated I4.O2.2OI7 is set aside, and the appellants a_re acquitted.

¶132

Since the appellant/A1 is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Since 42 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶133

Acqgtlingly, both the appeals are allowed.

¶134

//TRUE COPY//

¶135

SECTION OFFICER

¶136

One Fair C.gpy !9 the Hon,ble Sri Justice K. Surender

¶137

(For His Lordship,s Kind perusal)

¶138

One Fair Copy_to the Hon,ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal)

¶139

To,

¶140

1 noon,onrl l.4etropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (with records, if ]f;"

¶141

. The Station House Officer, panjagutta pS, Hyderabad District

¶142

J . The Superintendent, Centrat Lait,^-Cnenapaf fv, n"rs]'n.ody District

¶143

lBv ecial Messenoer I

¶144

cc^'b

¶145

4 11 LR Copies

¶146

,5 Affairs, New The Under SecretaDelhi ry, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company

¶147

The Secreta ry Advocates Associati

¶148

Telangana, High Court B uildings at il.ti?ii?; Hish court ror the state or \ Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, Hyderabad tourl High Court for the State of Telangana,

¶149

9.B. Two CDOne CC Copiesto Sri Y Ratna prabha, Advocate [oPUC]

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810212025

z COMMON JUDGMENT

,,.1 (: t
,/..
/. : I
(J
a-
2 4 riB 2025 /b

¶156

CRLA.Nos.381 & 464 of 2017

¶157

ALLOWING BOTH THE CRLAs

¶158

ln
L
I

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution - strained relations/motive, CDR contact between A1 and A2, purchase of Restyl tablets, presence of A2 at the scene, injuries on A2, and the recoveries of gold ornaments, key and cash - formed a complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence so as to satisfy the five golden principles (panchsheel) and sustain the conviction.¶130
The court held
The prosecution was bound to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence; in the present case every circumstance gives rise to doubt, such doubtful circumstances cannot form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards guilt, and in view of the discrepancies in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.ratio¶130
2.
Whether the call detail records produced by the prosecution, filed without certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, could be made the basis to conclude that A1 and A2 communicated with each other in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.¶98
The court held
The call detail records, admittedly filed without Section 65B certification as required under the decision in Chadrabhan Sudam Sanap, cannot be made the basis to conclude that there was communication between A1 and A2; consequently the alleged communication and plan between A1 and A2 stands unproved.ratio¶98
3.
Whether the evidence of P.W.6, that A2 went upstairs to the deceased's flat and came down on the date of the incident, reliably placed A2 at the scene of offence.¶111
The court held
The evidence of P.W.6 that A2 went upstairs and came down on the day of the incident is suspicious and appears planted: he claims to have waited near the watchman's room without contacting anyone although he had no telephone numbers, P.W.4 (watchman's wife) who was nearby did not state either his presence or A2's visit, the police showed him A2's photograph before identification, and no test identification parade was conducted.ratio¶111
4.
Whether the seizures effected at the instance of A1 and A2 (gold ornaments M.Os.2 to 6, key M.O.8 and cash) were duly proved and connected the accused with the offence.¶123
The court held
The gold ornaments M.Os.2 to 6 seized at the instance of A1 were neither subjected to test identification parade in accordance with Rule 34 of the Criminal Rules of Practice nor shown to PWs 1 to 3 to identify the jewellery as that of the deceased; hence the recovery does not establish that the ornaments belonged to the deceased.ratio¶123
5.
Whether the medical and forensic material - cause of death, absence of smell or traces of organophosphate insecticide, spindle-shaped stab injuries versus the single-edged M.O.9 knife, injuries on A2 and the tied hands of the deceased - supported the prosecution version of administration of tablets and poison followed by stabbing.¶116
The court held
P.W.18 admitted that spindle-shaped stab injuries with clean-cut margins are caused by a double-edged weapon, whereas M.O.9 (vegetable cutter knife) has a sharp edge on only one side; together with the absence of any smell of insecticide at post-mortem, this creates suspicion of the correctness of the prosecution claim that the deceased was administered insecticide poison and stabbed with M.O.9.ratio¶116

Sudhamsh Netha , Sunny, Secunderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhamsh Netha , Sunny, Secunderabad., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paligiri Vinoda Vs State of Telangana

Posham Dasharatha, Vs The State of Telangana

Posham Poorna Chander Rao Vs Thotti Srinivas @ Sreenu

Peetla Narsimlu Vs state of telangana

Anthati Arjunaiah, Nagarkurnool Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Arka Srinivas Vs The State of telangana