Allowed

Syed Hyder Ali, Rr.Dt and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025CRLA/456/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC for a murder at a Hyderabad cafe. The court found the eyewitnesses were doubtful chance witnesses whose presence was not recorded in contemporaneous documents, showed them police photographs before the identification parade, and noted missing FSL comparison reports. Extending benefit of doubt, it acquitted the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted of murder; bail bonds discharged.

Syed Hyder Ali, Rr.Dt and Anr., Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Appellants^{/ Accused Nos 2 & 3 weredirectedto be releasedon} bail by the Order of the High Court dated 19-01-2023^{madein l.A.No.3} of 2022 in Crl.A.No.456 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 456 OF 2017

¶8

Appeal under Section 37A Q) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 23-032017 made in S.C.No.10 of 2012 on the^file of^{the I Additional MetropolitanSessions} Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Syed Hyder Ali, S/o Syed Sadullah, Aged 26^years, Occ Daily Wage Earner, Rio 4-10-14212, Meer Momeen Ki Pahadi, Qayyam^{Nagar, Raiender Nagar,} R.R Dist

¶11

Zainab Begum @ Shabana Begum, Wo. Syed Mohd^{Raza Razvi} @^Syed Raza Ali, Age 32 Years, Occ House Wife, R/o^{H.No. 17-3-17216, lmambada,} Yakutpura, Hyderabad

¶12

...Appellants / Accused No 2 & 3

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^High court^at Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPODENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants Sri Mohammed Habeebuddin

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Sri D Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following Judgment^:

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER}

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI}

¶22

cRIMINAL APPEAL No.456^{OF 2OL7}

¶23

JUDGMENT:^(per The^{Hon'ble Sri JusticeK.SURENDER)}

¶24

The appe ll:rnts are A2 and^{A3 who are convictedby the learned} Sessions Judge: lor the^{offenceunderSection302 of the Indian PenaL} Code.

¶25

Though -,\1 was tried along with^{the appellants,h': died during} trial, for which reason, the case^{stood abated against hirn.}

¶26

Accordirr6l to the prosecution^case, Inspector^{of PolicePW. 14} received inforrr.ation at 2.5O^{p.m., on 03.O2.2009 that a quarrel took} place in Mornirig Star Caf6, SRT Colony, Yakutpura^Hyderabad. Having made zL GD entry,^PW. 14^{along with other poLce personnel} went to the hotel. There, a dead body was lying^{in a pool of blood.} The dead body rvas then shifted to^{Osmania General hospital,where} the doctors de<:l,ared the injured^{as brought dead.On the same day,} in the evening at 5.10^p.m., PW.l^{who is the wife of the deceased} went to the po1ir:e station and^{lodged complaint. The saLidcomplaint} was recorded b,y the Police. PW. 1 stated in^her complaint that^{she is}

¶27

¶28

the second wife of the deceased and the hrst wife is one Saleha Begum and 3.d wife was Zaibunnisa begum @ Sultana. A1 to .A3 are children of Zaibunnisa Begum. There were disputes between family members regarding the family owned properties. The children of the three wives were fighting amongst themselves. The deceased, without knowledge of PW. 1 and her children sold their house at Talabkatta and received advance sale consideration. The amount was given to the appellants.

¶29

PW. l's son Syed Samiullah (deceased) was involved in the murder of Zaibunnisa begum i.e., the mother of the appeliants. On O3.O2.2OO9 i.e. the day of the incident, the deceased kept his cell phone in his house. A phone call was received on the deceased's phone from Hyder Ali (A2). He abused PW.1 in filthy language and threatened to kill the deceased, when PW. 1 picked up the phone. A2 asked PW. 1 to send the deceased to the hotel. PW. 1 informed the deceased. After having lunch, the deceased went on his cycle and some time thereafter, PW. 1 came to know that the deceased was killed and his body was shifted to the Osmania General Hospital. The said information was given by the Police, who went to the house of PW. 1. The statement of PW. 1 was recorded, which is Ex.Pl, and the

¶30

¶31

same was registered^{as FIR. The FIR was immediatelv sent to the} Court concerned.^{The learned magistrateendorsed on the FIR that it} was received at^{9.30 p.m. on 03.O2.2OO9-}

¶32

PW.14 conducted scene^{of offencepanchanamzr-Bx'P3,and} rough sketch^{o1' scene-Ex'P4 was drawn in the presence of PWs 5} and 6. A dog^{squad was summoned.PW.13-Constabletook the dog} to the scene^{of offence.The dog moved around the area and went to a} house which belonged^{to Accused No.3. The saidhouse was locked'} The clues tearn^{collectedblood stained earthand corrtrolled earth} from the scene c'f^offence.

¶33

6 . The inqu e st on the body^{of the deceased was c:onductedon} O4.O2.2OO. Thc wearing^{apparel of the deceased was; alsoseized'} MOs.1 to 4^{rvere seized at the scene and MOs.Sto B the wearing} appareL of the^{d.eceased were sent forFSL examination'After} concluding intluest^{proceedings (trx.P17), the body'was sent for} Postmortem e><aLmination.^{PW.g conducted postmortenl and opined} that the death rsas^{due to multiple stab injuries(Ex.P14). PW.9 also} mentioned in^{t_LLe Postmortem examination reportthat the deceased} was under the rnfluence of^{alcohol. On 06.02.2009, A1 and A,2 were} apprehended. .{t the^{instance of A1, MO'9 which is the r;tainless steel}

¶34

¶35

knife was recovered. The wooden knife-M.O.l0 was recovered at the instance of 42. The said knives were seized near the graveyard of Himmam Bada. MOs. 11 and 12 which are wearing apparel of Al were also seized. The material objects MOs.9 to 12 were also sent for FSL examination. Test Identification Parade was conducted by^pW. l2 in Chanchalguda Central Prison premises on 2'1,.O3.2009. PWs.3 and 4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident identified A1 and A2.

¶36

7 . The police having concluded investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

¶37

The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence of PWs.3 and 4, convicted A2 and A3 for committing the murder of the deceased.

¶38

PWs.3 and 4 are eye-witnesses to the incident. According to PW.3, he went to the hotel which was near-by his house ald there he saw a lady catching hold of the deceased. The deceased was held and A1 and A'2 stabbed the deceased. In the cross-examination, PW.3 stated that PW.2 who is the brother-in-law of the deceased is known to him. The Court recorded that PW.2 was present in the Court during the evidence of PW.3. PW.3 further stated that in the normal

¶39

¶40

course, he would be in^{the oflice around 2.30 p.m' and he is a} government seruant.^{PW'3 admittedduringcross-ex:rminationas} follows:

¶41

" It is true thct Luhat is^{happening cannotbe seen by o person} if he is irt tlrc Morning^{Star Hotel. I haue gone and seen the} person who fell dou,,n and^{receiuedinjuies."}

¶42

He further^{stated that:}

¶43

"Within fifteen or^{tLUentAminutes police rushed to t\e scene} of offen<:e. I had talks^{with the police on the date of} incident. ..........1^{myselftaent to the police station atd police} did not call me. I utent^{to the police station afterthre'e or} four dags from the date of^incident for^the first^{tim.e. I uas not} examined by the^{police tuhen I tuent to the police sl ation} for the Jirst time. My name,^{mA particulars of identitgtuere taken} on the sam? daA of incident^{bg the police..... . . ..} '

¶44

before tttte'nding the ldentification^{Parade praceedings} conducted l:'y the Magistrate,^{I tuas calledbg the police to the} police stat,lnn On the same daA^police informed^me about the iLTentiJlcation^{parade proceedings and pttlice also} shown the photographs of A1^{and A2. Basing on the} photogra,p,l:;, I identified A1^{and A2 in the jail. It is true that} the accusenl is tallest and^{no person was equalized tuith the} height oJ the accused at the^{time of test ldenttficatio;t Parade} Proceedincts. It is tnrc that^police bnefed^{me to identifg a}

¶45

¶46

tallest person in the ldentifi.cation Parade Proceedings and state the same before the Magistrate....... . . . . . . .. .it is true that Ciminal Cases are pending agairust me and I am inuolued in murder case. It is true that Rein Bazar Police opened and maintained history sheet against me."

¶47

1 1. PW.4, another eye-witness stated that around 2.30 p.m., he and PW.3 were at the counter of the Morning Star Hotel, consuming tea. At that time, A3 chased the deceased and the deceased fell on the ground. A2 and A1 (died and he was identified at Test Identification proceedings) stabbed the deceased and all three fled.

¶48

PW.4 stated during cross-examination as follows:

¶49

".........On the next dag I uisited th.e police station approimatelg between 8.0O to 1O.OO p.m. I haue not seen anA person relatiue of the deceased at the police statign for the fi.rst time I stated to the police that I uitnessed the incident on the next dag. Euen I did not discuss Luith PW.s euen prior to mg uisit to the police station. I u)as at Morning Star Hotel for o period of 15 minutes after the incident and left the place before arriual of the police. I uent to the police station uoluntailg on the next dag. Before going to the police station I did not disclose the incident to ang bodg. I neuer uisited the police station after mg examination. I haue not lodged any uitten report before the^police about the incident. I uas hauing acquaintonce uith LW.25 M. Pichaiah Inspector of Police (ater examined as PW.14), Rein Bazar pior to this incident. Mang times pior to the incident I had been to the Police Station............1

¶50

¶51

ulent to th.e police station^{directly and met the tuiter of th-e station} and in tum. ;|he utiter of^{the station took me to the In:;pectorof} Police ancl, inspector of^{Police directedthe turiter to note douLn mg} statement. Vrithin^{ten or} fifteen^{minutesIleft the Police Station.} Inspector Luts; not enquired^{me about the incident and persontuho} came late als;o stabbed the^{person uho} fell^{do1un.......... ... I haue} come to the court along tuith^{PW.2........................1knott that the} a-ccused A2 i.; the brother^{in laut of PW.2 andPWr.3 is sister in latu} of PW.2"

¶52

PWs.3 ar-rrl 4 were^{present inthe hotel. Thel' are chance} witnesses, according to the^{prosecution, the incident happened} outside the hotel. As seen^{from the sketch trx.P4,tlLe deceased's} cycle is near Yousuf Sounds,^{whichshop is after two slLops from the} hotel Morning Star, i.e.,^{Al-Habeeb Medical and Gener:rl Storesand} Hazarat Dairy I'arm and the^{lane towardsImeLmabad,larea. PW.3} admitted that he could not see the^{incidentsince he ruas sitting in} the Morning S,tar Cafe. In^{trx. P4-sketch,the body was beside the} premises of orLe Ghouse Azam Dastagir.^{The said Ghousewas not} examined. In tretween the cycle and the^{dead body, th':re is Yousuf} Sounds shop, Royal Footwear^{shop, Misbha Co1-ections and} Mahboob Daiqr Farm. The dead^{body was show-nin-frcnt-ofMisbha} collections and beside the^{premises of Ghouse AzamDastagir. If the} deceased was chased from the^place where^cy'cle is^found till^the

¶53

¶54

place where the dead body was found, probable witnesses would be from the shops as mentioned above and also Hazarat Dairy Farm where the cycle was lying.

¶55

According to PW.3, he waited 15-20 minutes after the killing took place and then police came to the scene. Though he talked to the police officials, he was not examined by the police and he voluntarily went to the police station after 3 to 4 days of the incident. According to PW.3, his particulars were taken initially and his statement was not recorded on that day also. As on the date of Test Identification Proceedings, PWs.3 and 4 were present. PW.3 admitted that the police had asked them to identify Al and A2 by showing their photographs. PW.3 is a rowdy sheeter in the Rein Bazar police Station.

¶56

PW.4 also admitted that though he was present along with PW.3 and stayed at the scene for 15 minutes, however, he left before police arrived. The next day, he went to the police station to give his statement. He admitted that he was having acquaintance with Inspector of Police-PW. 14 who registered the crime and he had been to the police station several times.

¶57

¶58

The Hono rrrable^{SupremeCourt inSuresh and othersa} State of HarAana and^{othersl held that:}

¶59

"47,^{Generallg,the chancewitness,uho reasonablg e:rplains his} presence ln the named location at^{the releuanttime, moL] be taken} into consid'zration and^{should be giuendue regard, ifnis uersion} inspires r:ory1dence and the^{same is supported bg surrounding} circumstances. Nonetheless,^{the euidence of achance uitness} requires o. uery cautious^{and close scruting.A chance tui'.ness must} adequately explain^{his presence at the place of occun'ence (refer} to Satbir t'. Surat^Singh [satbir^{u. Surat Sinqh, (191t7)4SCC} 192 : 1^gSrT SCC^{(Cri) 5381 and Harjinder SinghtState of} Punjab [Ilctlinder Singh u.^{Stateof Punjab, (2004) 11 SCC 253 :} 2OO4 SCC ()n) Supp²⁸¹ ).^{Depositionof o chance uitnessuLhose} presence c,.t the place of incident^{remainsdottbtful shouldbe} discorded. (refe, to Shonkarlal u. State of Rajasthan [lihankqrlal u.^{State of Rajasthan,(2OO4) 10 SCC 632 :} 2005 SCC^(Cri) 5791 ).^{The behauiour of the chanc=uLitness,} subsequentl to the incident^{mag alsobe taken into cotsideration} parlicularlg, as to uhdther he has^{informedo.nAone else in the} uillage obo:tt the incident^{(refer to Thongaigo u. Stateof} T.N. [ThanqaiAa u. State of^T.N ,^{(2005) 9 SCC 650 : 2OOSSCC} pd 12841t '

¶60

In Manoj and others v.^{Stote of Madhga Pradesh2, the}

¶61

Honourable StLp,reme Court^{held that}

¶62

'^{ltexu/sclosg+lzol! .= (2018)l8 scc654}

¶63

¶64

*1O2. A chance Laitness is one utho appears on the scene suddenlg. This species of urifness u)as descibecl in Puran u. State of Punjab [Puran u. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 454 : AIR 1953 SC 4591 in the foltou-ting terms : (SCC p. 459, para 4)

¶65

"4. ... Such uifnesses houe the habit of appeaing suddenly on the scene u.then something is hoppening and then of disappeaing after noticing the occurrence about ulhich theg are called later on to giue euidence."

¶66

7O3. This Court has sounded a note of caution about dealing tuith the testimonA of chance zzifnesses. In Darga Singh u. State of Punjab [Darga Singh u. State of Punjab, (1964) 3 SCR 397 : AIR 1965 SC 3281 it u.tas obserued thot : (AIR p. 331, paro 6)

¶67

"6. ... u.there the u.titness is a close relation of the uictim and is shown to share the uictim's hostilitg to his assailant, that naturallg makes it necessarA for the ciminal courts to examine the euidence giuen bg such ttitness uerg carefullg and scrutinise all the infi.rmities in that euidence before deciding to oct upon it. In dealing with such euidence, courts naturallg begin uith the enquiry as to uhether the said witnesses were chance uitnesses or uhether theg u-tere reallg present on the scene of the offence. ... If the criminal court is satisfied thctt the uitness u-tho is related to the uictim u)as not a chance uitness, then his euidence has to be examined from the point of uieu of probabilities and the account giuen bg him as to the assault has to be carefullg sctutinised."

¶68

' 1zozt1^{z scc zsz}

¶69

¶70

In case^rtl- Harbeer Singh^{and others u.Shcteshpal and}

¶71

others3, the Hr:trourable^{SupremeCourt held that:}

¶72

"23.^{Th.e ,7efining ottibutesof a'chance tuitne;;s" tuere} explainerl bg Mahajan, J., in Puran u. Sr.ate of Punjab [P,-Lran u. State^{of Punjab,(1952)2 SCC 454 : AIR 1953} SC 459 : 1953 Ci Ll 19251^{. It uLasheld that such ruitnesses} haue th.e trubit of appeaing^{suddenlgon the scenetuhen} something is happening^{and thendisappeoing after nc'ticingthe} occurrence about tuhich^{theg are called lateron to giue <,uidence.} 24. In MoLLsom Singha^Rog u.^{State of W.B} [Mousam^Singha Roy u. State of W.8.,^{(2003) 12 SCC 377 : 2OO4 SCC iCflSupp} 4291 , thi.s Court discarded^{the euidenceof chctnce tritnesses} u,hile obs,=ruing that certain^{glaing contradicti.ons/om ssionsin} the euid<zr,.cz of PW^{2 and PW 3 and the absenceof tht:irnames} in the FIR ltas been uery lightlg^{discarded bg the courtsbelotu.} Similarl.g, Shankarlal u. State of Rajasthan [shonkarlal u. State of^{Rajasthan, (2004) 1O SCC} 632 : 2CtA 5 SCC Pd 5791 and^{Jarnail Singhu. State of} Punjob ,rJ arnail Singh u.^{State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 :} (2O1O) 1 i;CC Pd 1071 are authoities for the^{proposition that} depositir>n of a chance u.titness,^{tDhosepresenceat th<t placeof} incident rernains doubtful, ought to^{be discarded.Therefore,} for the reasons recorded bg^{the High Court u.te hold that PW 5 and} PW 6 u)ere chance witnesses and^{theirstatementsltcLue been} ightly d.iscarded.

¶73

In th<t tight of the aboue^{and other reasonsrecord:d bg the} High Cour7, uLe hold that the euidence of the egetuitnes^{ses is not}

¶74

I1zoto) to scc +r8

¶75

¶76

truthfu| reliable and trustu)orthy and hence cannot forrn the basis of conuiction. Their presence at the scene of occurrence at the time of the incident is highlg unnatural as also their abititg to indiuidually and correctlA identifu each of the accused- from a considerable distance, especiallg u.then it uLas dark at the olleged place of occurrence, is itself suspect."

¶77

The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 that they witnessed the incident is highly doubtful. Both are friends of PW.2, who is the cousin of the deceased. PW.2 was admittedly present during Court proceedings, when PWs.3 and 4 deposed. PW.3 specifically stated that the police arrived at the scene and he had talked to them, however, his presence is nowhere stated either in the complaint or the investigation that has taken place at the scene. PW. 14-Investigating Ofhcer, who first visited the scene, did not speak about the presence of PW.3. If really PW.3 was present and he informed the Police at the scene that he is an eye witness, there is no reason why the police did not record his statement. PW.3's evidence further becomes doubtful for the reason of his going to the police station 3 or 4 days thereafter and his statement not being recorded by the Police as admitted by him.

¶78

¶79

The photographs^{of A1 and A2 were shown to PW.3 before the} Test Identification^{Proceedings. Both PWs.3 and 4} "vere^present during Test Iclentification^{Parade. Both PW.3and PW.4 .ldmitted that} they regularly^g,l to^{the police station and there are cases pending} against them.^F or the^{said reason,the evidence of I'Ws.3 aod 4} cannot be corrsidered,^{whosenames were not ment ioned in the} complaint, scerte of^{offence proceedings or the inquestproceedings.}

¶80

Once the evidence of^{PWs.3 and 4 iseschewedfrom} consideration, there^{is no otherevidenceapart from the recoveryof} MOs.9 ancl 10,^{stainless steel knife and woodenknife- respectively'} Ex.p15 is the frsll report^{pertaining to the blood and soil collected at} the scene. trx.ll^{[6-FSLreport pertains to the wearing apparel of the} deceased. Thor:13h, PW.14^{statedthat he sent the material objects} [MOs.9^{to 12) seizedfrom A1 and A2 to comparethe blood group} with the mate rial^{seized from the deceased,however no such FSL} report is filed. l\o document^{is placed on record to slrow any FSL} examination ol'MOs.9^{to 12. In the absence of any evidence to show} that MOs.9 to L2 contained blood^{of the deceased, the recovery of} MOs.9 to 12 is c,f no^consequence.

¶81

¶82

The evidence of Constable of the dog squad that the dog went near the house of 43 and came back also cannot form basis to infer that it was the appellants who were involved in the commission of offence

¶83

o2 .For^{the reasons} and diicrepancies discussed, benefit of doubt rs extended to the appellants.

¶84

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted. since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged

¶85

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR

¶86

//TRUE COPY//

¶87

ECTION OFFICER

¶88

One Fair Gopy to the Hon'ble^{Sri Justice K. Surender} (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal)

¶89

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble^{Sri Justice AnilKumarJukanti} ' (For His Lordship's Kihd Perusal)

¶90

To, 1 The I Additional Metropolitan^{SessionsJudge, Hyderabad (with records,if} any)

¶91

2 The Vlll Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad} 3 '1 1 LR Copies

¶92

4 The Under Secretary,^{Union of lndia Ministryof Law, Justice and Company} Affairs, New Delhi

¶93

5 The Secretary, Advocates^{Association Library, High Court for the State of} Telangana, Hign Court^{Buildingsat Hyderabad}

¶94

6 The Superintendent, Cenkal^{Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad}

¶95

7 The Station House Officer,^{Rein BazarPS'Hyderabad District} B Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶96