Dismissed

The Addl Pp, High Court at Hyderabad Vs

Telangana HC23 Jan 2025CRLA/656/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeals against acquittal of nine accused of planting a bomb at Madina Education Center causing a death. The prosecution confined its challenge to the Arms Act seizure. Finding the trial court's conclusions were based on record and consistent with settled principles on appeals against acquittal, the High Court dismissed both appeals.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Addl Pp, High Court at Hyderabad Vs — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^341s ]

¶2

i it it tli

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶7

CRIMINAL AP PEAL Nos: 655 &⁶⁵⁶ of²⁰¹⁷

¶8

Criminal ADDeal No.655 of²⁰¹⁷

¶9

Appeal under Section 378(3) &⁽¹⁾ of Cr.P.C against^{the order dated} 01-06-2007 passed in SC.No.250 of^{1996 on the file of the Court of the} Additional Metropolltan Sessions Judge^{for the trial of Communal Offence cases} -cum- Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Red Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

The State of A.P- rep. by^{its Public Prosecutor, High Courtof A.P., at Hyderabad-}

¶12

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

MohC. Shamshuddin, S/o Mohd.^{Ruknuddin, Age:36years, Rl/o H.No.6S39,} Rangeer Masjidh, Moinpura, Gulbargah.

¶15

Mohd. Zaheeruddin^{Ahmed, S/o Mohd. Nooruddin Ahmed, Age:34years, Rl/o} H.No-6-6 1 0, Moinpura, Gulbargah.

¶16

Mohd. Azeemuddin,, S/o^Mohd. Ziauddin,^{Age:31years, Ri/o H.No-7-775/5C,} Muslim Chowk, Near Salneen Masji,^Gulbargah.

¶17

Mohd. Nisaruddin Ahmed,^{S/o Mohd. Nooruddin Ahmed, Age:31years, Rl/o} H.No.6-610, Hajiwadi,^{Moinapura, Gulbhargah.}

¶18

Mohd- Yusuf , S/o Mohd.^{Basheeruddin, Age:35years, Fl/o Naya Mahalta} Housing Board Colony, Gulbargah.

¶19

Mohd. Saleem Mohammed^{Ansari, S/o Mohamood Ansari, Age:44 years,Rl/o} H.No.47, BlT, Block No-4, Moinapura, Bombay'

¶20

tvlohd- Ghouse, S/o late^{Mohd. Akbar, Age:35years, Fi./o Jawaharnagar,} Yusufguda, Hyderabad.

¶21

Syed Khaja Majeeduddin,^{S/o Syed Khaja Fareeduddin, Age:31years, R/o} New Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶22

i t;I II i,

¶23

Appeal Split up against^{R.8 as per the orders dated 14-06-2017in} CirlAvp.tlb.tzz2 ofio17^{in crlA.(sR) No.15414of 2008 Proceedingssheet'}

¶24

Aaz Akbar,^S/o Abdul^{Majeed, Age:33years, Ri./oH.No.7-775lB'} Nayamabarka, Gulbargah,^{Karnataka State.}

¶25

...RespondenUAccused

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant:^{Additional Public Prosecutor}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents^{No.1,8 & 9: Sri K. Vasanth Rao, LegalAid}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents^{No.2to 7: Sri Mohd.MuzaferullahKhan}

¶29

Criminal ADDeal^{No.656of 2017}

¶30

Appeal under Section 378(3)^{& (1) of Cr.P.C againstthe order dated 01-06-2007} passed in SC.No.250 of 1996 on^{the file of the Court of the A;ditional} Metropolitan sessions Judge^{for the trial of communaloffencecases -cum- Vll} Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶31

Between:

¶32

State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Courtat} Hyderabad.

¶33

.Petitioner/Appellant

¶34

AND

¶35

Syed Khaja Majeeduddin,^{S/o Syed Khaia Fareeduddin, Age:31years, RJo New} Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶36

...Accused No.8 g

¶37

Counsel for the Appellant:^{AdditionalPublic Prosecutor}

¶38

Counsel forthe Respondent:^{Sri K. Vasanth Rao, Legal Aid}

¶39

The Court delivered the following:^{COMMONJUDGMENT}

¶40

l(\

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURINDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. ANIL KI'MAR

¶42

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.655 & 656 OF 2OL7

¶43

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice KSurender)

¶44

l. Crl.A.No.655 of 2Ol7 is preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of A-1 to A-7 and A-9 and Cr1.A.No.656 ol 2OI7 is hled questioning the acquittal of A-8 in S.C.No.2SO of 1996, on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence CasesCum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, RedHills, Hyderabad.

¶45

Since both the Appeals arise out of common^judgment, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common^judgment.

¶46

Heard Sri K.Vasanth Rao, learned legal aid counsel appearing of A- 1, A-8 and A-9 and Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, Iearned counsel appearing for A-2 to A-7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶47

The respondents/ accused Nos.l to 9 were charge sheeted for entcring into a conspiracy to strike terror in different sections of people by placing explosives which are

¶48

¶49

bombs. Accordingly, tl.ey planted a bomb at Madina Education Center, located opposite to public Garde tU^{LUr'f^} n.ln,u+ieh one Pasha Miya died. The Police have taken up investigation and identifred respondents/ accused Nos.1 to 9 as the persons who were responsible for placing the bombs, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to one Sweeper named MaIlamma. The accused were charge sheeted under Sections 120_8, 286, 436, 324 r/w.34 of IpC, Sections 25 & 2Z of Arms Act and Sections S ana S of the Explosive Substances Act and charges were accordingly framed.

¶50

¶51

karned Sessions Judge has glven reasons for acquitting the accused.

¶52

6 l,earned public prosecutor would fairly submit that her argument is confined only to the provision under the Arms Act, since M.Os.I to 3 were recovered. Further, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no evidence insofar as other allegations under IpC and Explosives Act are concerned

¶53

Learned Sessions Judge discussed the seizure of M.Os.l to 3 which were from the possession of A 6 in

¶54

¶55

pursuance of disclosure statement, however, P.W.¹³ did^not support the prosecution case. Apart from the^saidevidence of P.W. 13, there is no other^{evidence which was reliedon by} the prosecution to show that^M.O. l,^{whichis a country made} revolver, was seized at the instance of A-6^{which was in} working condition. Further, learned Sessions Judge^found that the property though seized^{was not depositedby the} Police immediately. He^{placed relianceon the judgmentof} the Hon'ble Supreme Court in^{Amarjit Singh} @^{Babu Vs.} State of Punjabr, wherein the Honble^{Supreme Court held} that the seized weapons not^{being sealed would be a seriQus} infirmity and tampering could not be^ruled out.^Learned Sessions Judge found the facts in the^case of^Amarjit Siagh's case are similar to the^{lacts ol the presentcase.}

¶56

g. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rcrai Shanna o. Stdte^(Gouernment o!^NCT of^{Dethi) and} another2, held that while dealing^with an appeal^against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether^the trial Court's view can be termed as a^possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The

¶57

r 1995 SCC (CRl) 828

¶58

2 lZOZZl e Supreme Court Cases 536

¶59

¶60

¶61

reason is that an order of acquittai adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

¶62

10' rn Ghureg l-ar a. state of tlttar prad.esrf the Honble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellatc Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

¶63

.'.7O^{In the tightof the aboue, the High} Court and other appellate Courts should fo_llou the _."u_r*iio- )nn ipl", " crystalhzed bg number of Judgments iy it o goi; to ul.,.rn l" o, otheru.tise disturb the triat court,s aquittal:^'

¶64

dtsturb , 1: The tLrc trial appellate court court's aceuittit y maA only ii n"" ouemtle or othenuise'- ;r)-"i'sJlrstantiateet t' nqu and compelling reasons" for aonj "i. A number of instances arbe ln u.thich the appellate court discard tuould hnue the trial^.uery court,s substantial d.ecision. and_ compellinf "V.rg .;Arro;.tirot '."rrionr,, onato compelling reasons" exist tt_tlLen:

¶65

i) The trial court's conclusion uith regard to the Jocts is palpablg urong: ii) TLrc trial court's deci.sion wos based on an err()neous uietu of laut; ^,^^:i:).|h.^{tialcourt,s jud_gment is likelg to resuttin ,,graue} mrs carnage of justice" ; the tiat aurT in deuttnq u,rth rhe (utuence ",,,^-,31!1:":::_:!!,::"h..f utas paten g illegal; ul^'fhe.trial courl's judgment was manifestlA un1ust ond unreasonable;

¶66

r 1ZOO81 fO Supreme Court Cases 450

¶67

¶68

ui) The tnd court hos ignored th.e evidence or misread^the materi.al euidence or *tas ignored mateial documents like dging declarations/ reporr of the ballistic exryrL etc.

¶69

vii)This list is intended to be illustrotiue, not exhnustiue. 2, The appellate court must olwaAs giue proper weight and arsideration o the findings of the tial court. 3. If two reasonable uieuts con be reached- one that leads to aquitta| the other to conutction -th e High Courts/ apellate courts must rule in fouour of the accus d."

¶70

The findings of the learned Sessions Judge insofar as

¶71

offences under the Arms Act are concerned are based on

¶72

record and need no interference.

¶73

12.^{'Accordingly,} both the Appeals are dismissed.

¶74

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Communal Offence cases -cum- Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

¶79