Md. Isaq, Rr.Dt And ANR., v. State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,

[ 341s 1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 113 120 214 AND 433 0F 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 113 OF 2017 BAIL SLIP : The Appellants / Accused Nos 1 and 5 were directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 18,04-2018 made in l.A.No.2 of 2018 in Crl.A.No. 113 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 31-122016 made in S.C.No.1 ot 2012 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy Diskict. Between:

Md. lsaq, S/o. lsmail, Aged 24 years, Occ. Computer Operator, R/o_ Railway Quarters, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (A-1) Riyaz Khan, Sio, Rehmath Khan, Aged 23 years, Occ. Chicken Business Near RTC Bus Sland, Vikarabad, R/o. H. No.3-2-5, Yennepally, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (A-5) ...Appellants / Accused AND State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

...Respondent / Complainant

l.A. NO: I OF 2017(CRLAMP. NO: 2456 0F 20171 Petition under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit fitred in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in SC No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy

District and release the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No. l'13 of 2017 pending before this Hon'ble Court.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:'120 OF 2017 BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused No 4 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 18{4-2018 made in l.A.No.1 of 2018 in Cr{.A.No.120 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 31-'122017 made in S.C.No.1 of 2O12 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. Between: - Md. Khaja Pasha @ S.K. Khaja @ Khaja, S/o. Jahangir Miya, Aged 21 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Yennepally, Vikarabad ...Appellant I Accused No 4 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

...Respondent / Complainant

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 214 OF 2017 BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused No 2 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 26{,4-2018 made in l.A.No.1 of 2O18 in Crl.A.No.214 of 2O17 Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 31-122417 made in S.C.No.1 of 2O12 on the file of the Court of ttre Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. Between:

Md. Ghouse, S/o. Shafiuddin , Aged 22 years, Occ Mutton Business, Wo lsakhan Bagh, Opp Old Surya Gas Company, Mkarabad ...Appellant / Accused No 2 AND The State of Telangana, Rep, by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

...Respondent / Complainant

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:433 OF 2017 BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused No 2 was directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 10-04-2018 made in l.A.No.1 of 2018 in Crl.A.No.433 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 31-122017 made in S.C.No.1 of 2O12 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. Between:

Mohd Bilal, S/o. Babu Miya, Aged 28 years, Occ. Business, C/o. New Royal Footvvear Shop NTR Crossroad, Subhash Nagar Vikarabad Town, Ranga Reddy ...Appellant AND State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor of High Court at Hyderabad

...Respondent

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLAMP. NO: 895 OF 20171 Petition under Section 3Bg (1) of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the Petitioner/A-3 on bail in SC No. 112012 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Sessions Judge of Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellants in :

Crl.A.No.113 of 2O1l Sri T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy Senior Counsel Counsel for the Appellant in Crl.A"No.12O ot 2O17 Smt C Vasundhara Reddy Counsel for the Appellant in Crl.A.No.214 ot 2O17 Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan Counsel for the Appellant in Crl.A.No.433 of 2O17 Sri S M Rafee

Counsel for the Respondent in Atl the Appeals Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Common Judgmbnt :

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KI'MARJUI{ANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. I 13, L2O, 2L4 and 433 of 2OL7 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1i3 of 2Ol7 is filed by A1 and A5, Criminal Appeal No.12O of 2077 is Iiled by A4, Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2Ol7 is filed by ,{2 and Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2Ol7 is Iiled by A.3. Since a-11 the appellants are challenging ttre judgment of conviction in S.C.No. I of 2012, dated 31.12.2016, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. The appellants/Al to A5 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 3O2 r/w L49 IPC and further convicted ald sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 148 IPC. ,{6 to A8 and A1O to A17 were acquitted. A,9 died during pendency of trial. 3.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Narsing Rao was the son of the defacto-cornplainant of late L.W. 1 Bakkoni Kumara Swamy and brother of P.W. 1 Bakkoni Balakrishna. On the night of |9J2.2OO6 at about 21.OO hours, I

when P.W.4, Nallolla Sudheer and Prabhaker were quarrelling with P.W.5 Benoni alias Bhone and P.W.6 Parnandi Arpith near Railway Station, Vikarabad, P.W.6 informed the same to Al, who was at Hotel along with A11. On that A1 pushed p.W.4 Nallolla Sudheer, due to which P.W.4 fell down on the Pulsar Motor Cycle of Ali ald tlre indicators of the said motor cycle got damaged. On 2O.L2.2OO6 at about 21.30 hours, Al, A2, A5 ald A11 and others went to the house of P.W.4 and asked about p.W.4 ald demanded to pay the amount for damages to the motor cycle of A,11. 4.

On 21.12.2006 in the absence of A.1, the deceased. and p.W.4 went to the house of A1 and asked about him. ,A.1 came to know that the deceased and P.W.4 came to his house. -.A.1 along.with All went to Railway Guest House where p.W.4 and others were present. On seeing P.W.4, A,1 and All beat him with hands and demanded to pay the amount for the damage of the motor cycle and asked as to why he came to the house of Al. Meantirne, deceased who was coming from Saw Mill carne there on being called by p.W.4. Deceased tlereatened A1 and Al1.

5. About six months prior to incident, when the cousin of A5 was coming from Hyderabad 1n train, the deceased and others threatened him. On which, A7, A2, A3, A4 and A5 went to the Gym and asked about threatening the cousin of A5 in train, the deceased intervened and threatened to kill A1 to A5.

6.

On 21.12.2006, A'1 to A17 hatched a plan to kill the deceased and formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with sword, knives, iron rods and sticks. They gathered at Railway Guest House of Vikarabad in a dark place. A,3 was sent to his hotel, which is situated in front of Ambedkar Statue and A3 was watching movements of the deceased and his friends. Before gathering, A1 to ,{6 asked P.W.9 Chowhan Manoj to call the deceased ald abused him. When P.W.9 informed the deceased that A1 was abusing him, the deceased along with P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.S who were attending marriage at Indira Nagar, went to Ambedkar Statue near Railway Station at about 22.30 hours on ttre same day i.e., 21.12.2006. When they were talking to P.W.9, A3 informed the appellants on phone about deceased and his friends standing at Ambedkar Statue, near Railway Station, Vikarabad. Immediateiy, .-.?

srx accused persons went on pulsar bike and Scooter and remaining accused went running towards Ambedkar Statute. A5 along with other accused went there with knives, sword, rods and sticks and picked up quarrel with the deceased and p.Ws.2 to 4, g and 9. Mealtime, one Jaweed (not examined) went there and separated them. When deceased and others were proceeding towards Shailaja Theatre to the house of deceased, A1 to A17 and others attacked deceased from back side. A1 to A3 attacked the deceased with knives, A5 stabbed with sword, A4, A6 beat the deceased with iron rods, Aro, A1r, A12 and A13 beat the deceased with sticks, A.9 and A14 caught hold of the deceased and A1S to A17 beat the deceased with hands. Due to which, deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries to his head, forehead, waist, chest and on his back etc.

, and the sarne was witnessed by p.Ws.2 to 4and PWs.8,9. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Vikarabad by p.W.8 and L.W. 12. Thereafter, they shifted the deceased to osmania General Hospitar, Hyderabad for treatment in the TATA Sumo of p.W. 11. The deceased was declared as brought dead by Doctors at Osmania General Hospital.

7. The father of the deceased L.W. 1 lodged Ex.pl comptaint with P.W. 16-Sub-Inspector of police, Vikarabad police Station on 22.72.2006 at about 6.0O hours, basing on which p.W. 16 registered a case in Cr.No.344/2OO6 under Sections I4Z, 14g, 3O2 r/w 149 IPC and issued Ex.p2g express FIR.

8.

On the basis of the complaint hled, p.W.16 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch was drawn in the presence of mediators. TWo sticks, one pulsar motor bike, scooter found at the scene, was video graphed, photographed and seized. p.W.6, then went to the hospitat and conducted inquest over the dead body. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem doctor found 15 grievous stab injuries' The cause of death was murtipre stab injuries to the chest. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed against 17 accused. All the 17 accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge. However, learned Sessions Judge found that A1 to A5 were only complicit of murdering deceased, since specific overt acts were attributed to them by p.Ws.2 to 4, g and 9. The overt acts

attributed to other accused during investigation were not stated by the witnesses' A6 to A8 and A1O to A17 were acquitted' g. Heard Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for A1 and A5, Smt C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel fot A4' Sri Mohd.M rlzaffet Ullah Khan, learned counsel fot A2 ald Sri S.M.Rafee, learned counsel for ,{3'

10. Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learneC Senior Counsel submits that the complaint was filed oo 22J22006 at 6'OO a'm' though the incident happened at 1O'OO p'm, the previous day' There is a delay of eight hours in lodging the complaint' The complaint is hit by Section L62 Cr'P'C since the author of the complaint died. The contents of the complaint cannot be looked into. karned counsel further argued that the complaint reached the Magrstrate at 11.OO a.m or:_ 22'12'2006 with a delay of f,rve hours according to the investigating offrcer/P'W'16' who admitted that Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vikarabad was at a distance of 1O to 15 minutes from the police station' In the said circumstances, for the reason of there being no explanation for the delay in sending ttre complaint to the Magistrate, it is apparent that \ \

the complaint was fabricated subsequenfly implicating severa-l accused.

11. Learned counsel relied on tJle judgment of Hon,ble Supreme court in the case of Rajeevan and another v. state of Keraral. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme court while dealing with delay in lodging the FIR and FIR reaching the Court, found tllat the delay throws any arnount of doubt regarding prosecution case being correct. The Hontrle Supreme Court observed as under: *72, Anotle-r doubtfut factor i.s the d.elayed lodging oJ- FIR. The learned. cotlnseJfoy th.e appe|ants higLnights tiis yactoi. iere it k worrhtthile to rekr Ttutlia Kali u. s.tate "1 riv. lltsrzj: sii-lss : 1972 SCC (Ci) 5431 ulerein tLe detayed filing of en "i it. .ons"quen es are discussed. At paro 12 th; Co;ft s;g"l fsci i isz") " "!::.1-y!.:::!-" :"p?1 in a ciminat *"2 i" on enremety uitat and uatua.Dte ptecz of evidence . for the purryse of corroboratiig the oral euid.encr adduced at the-fi;|., rne impirtance" jin ooor. report can *:l!t2".::::"_l^",:a.f,?ry the stanipoiii "f ti" rroc,,""a. rhe object of ut-slsnng -upon prompt lodging of tlrc report to the police i" ,esp"a iJ ::1y:i:"

of .an offence is-.to- obtain LnAA information regarding the cararnstances in uhich the- cime *o, "o. itt"di th.e names oy tn" i.arot tttlpits and the patt plaged by tfnm as i"tt a-s tE rlrrmr:s of egeuitttesses present at the scenl of or:cttoen -. Delag in lodghg th; first .informgtign report quite ofi.en ,isuU, i, i-teUi"n^"nt u.thich is a {:2*^!.?f"rthaught. On aununt of detag, ttte report not only gets ?:::!-.:! th.e^ aduantage of spontaneitg, d.anger creeps in 6y- tne tntrod.uctton oJ- oloured uersion, exaggerated account or onaaed story as a ,result of deliberation and rrrnsit:lation. It is, therefore, essential thit the lejag.iy lodging of the frst inforrnatioi i.p"i'"n *U be satisfactoilg explained."

1:, - ,* is_ the position *::i:t?tlA fouonted. by this Court in Malnraj singh u. State of u.p. [jss4) s sbc laa , tbbi scc pn) 1s91] an&. 1 (20031 3 Supreme Court Cases 355

recEntlA in Thonedar Singh u. State of M.P. [(2OO2) 1 SCC 487 : 2OO2 scc (cfl lssl

75. This Court in Marudanal Augusti u. State of Kerda [(1980) 4 SCC 425 : 1980 SCC Pn) 9851 while deciding a cose uthich inuolues a Etestion of deloyed dispatch of tlrc FIR to tle Magi-strate, cautioned that such delay tuould throw seious doubt on the proseantion a.se, uhereas in irjun Maik u. Stote of Bitnr [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 : 7994 SCC (Cn) 15511 it uLas reminded. bg this Court tlnt: (SCC p- 382, para 24) "[T]le foruording of the ocalrren@ report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be forutarded with earliest dispatch which intention is impticit uLith tle use of the word fortluaith' odafiaing in Section 157 CrPC, u.thich means promptlg and uitlaut ang undue delay. The purpose and objed is uery obuious which is spett out from the umbined reading of Sections 157 and 159 CrPC. It ltos tfrc dual purpose, firstlg to auoid the possibilitg of improuement in the proseottion story and inlroduction of any distorted uersion bg deliberattons and (nnsultation and secondly to enable the Magistrate ancerned to tnue a tuatch on tle progress of the inuestigatioru. "'

12. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, held that delay in lodging the FIR was fata,l and the case of the prosecution was disbelieved.

13. In State of Gujarat v. IGshanbhai and others3, the Honble Supreme Court found that on the basis of circumstances and there being a delay in complaining to the police, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.

': 1994 Supp (1)Supreme coLrrr Cases 590 r (2014; 5 Supreme Court Cases 108

L4. In Bheemgonda and others v. State of Andhra pradesha, the Honble Division Bench of this Court while dea,ting with a case wherein there was 3 zz hours delay after the incident, found favour with the version of the accused that the accused were farsery implicated after due deliberations.

15- on t.I.e other hand, learned Additional public prosecutor would submit that P.ws.4 and 9 are the eye witnesses to the incident a,,d P'w'16/Investigating officer has taken immediate action against appellants on the basis of the complaint rrred. As seen from ,re evidence of P.Ws.4 and 9, it was the appellants/Al to A5 who had brutally attacked the deceased and caused his death. Though, 46 to A17 were prosecuted, only for the reason of their acquittal, no beneht can be extended to the present appellants against whom specific overt acts were attributed by the eye witnesses p.Ws.4 and 9.

16. The complaint Ex.p1 was given by the father of p.W. 1. He died during pendency of trial. p.w. 1, who is the brother of the deceased identilied Ex.P1 and marked, though marking was objected by the 'zorz (rlnlo (ca.) gs (lp) I

defence. Learned Sessions Judge marked Ex'Pl, subject to objection, on the ground that P.w. 1 was aware of the fact that tl-re father had lodged complaint and he had accompanied his father while lodging complaint and also identifred the signature of his father.

Though, Ex.Pl was marked, however, the contents of Ex'Pl 17.

calnot be read in evidence since the author of Ex.P1 was not examined. Ex.P1 is a statement made during the course of investigation ald hit by Section L62 CI.P.C. To the extent of corroboration of lodging complaint at the specilied time by the father of P.W. 1, Ex.P1 can be relied on.

18. Both P.W. 1 and his father, who lodged complaint Ex.P1 are not eye witnesses to the incident. According to the evidence of P.W. 1, he did not state in his chief examination as to who informed about the incident. However, ttre entire narration of P.W. 1 was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. When P.W- 1 was not an eye witness to the incident and it is not stated as to the source of his knowledge about the incident, learned Sessions Judge should not have perrnitted recording of such evidence w'hich is hearsay in

nature' Learned Sessions Judge should have restrained from recording inadmissible evidence.

19. However, in the cross_examination, p.W. 1 stated that he received phone call from Naveen, who was examined as p.w.g and he was declared as hostile to the prosecution case. p.w.2 identified ,{1, ,{3 to A5 and A11. However, he did not speak about the attack by any of t.lle appellants and was declared hostile to the prosecution case' P'w'2 stated that there was a quarrer and thereafter, they disbursed from the said prace. p-w.3 was declared host,e ard did not state anything about any of the appellants attacking the deceased.

20- P.w.4 is an eye witness to the incident. He narrated ttre sequence of events as on the date of incident. He stated that 41 to ,{6 and their supporters started attacking the deceased, himself, P'w'2 and others. A1 to 46 inflicted injuries on the deceased and he fell down. Immediately, p.W.4 informed p.W. I on phone about the incident.

)

21. l,earned Sessions Judge observed during examination of P'W'4 in the court that the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C were not provided to the accused and deferreci cross-examination of P.W.4. However, on the date of crossexamination when P.W.4 was recalled, the police produced copies of statements but they were not legible and the learned Sessions Judge asked the Public Prosecutor about originals. Further, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the originals of the statements were not hled in the Court. Not providing copies of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses which are legible and can be read, prejudice would be caused to the accused.

22. However, cross-examination was taken up by the defence counsel. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 adrnitted that Vikarabad Police Station was at half kilometer distance from Ambedkar Statue where ttre incident had taken p1ace. He further admitted ttrat police examined him at 2.OO or 2.3O a.m.

23. P.W.9 is another eye witness to the incident. He narrated sequence of events on the date of incident and stated that 42, ,A3, .44 and 50 others attackod jtre deceased-, P.Ws, 2, 4, 9 and others

with talwars and iron rods. P.W.9 fled from the scene. P.W.9 admitted in his cross-examination that the Vikarabad Police Station was very near and he did not go to the police station immediately a-fter the incident and did not give any complaint to the police about the incident. P.W.g did not deny that his statement was recorded by the JFCM, three months after the incident.

24. P.W. 16 is the Investigating OIIicer, who received the complaint Ex.Pl. He registered the case against A,1 to A5 and others. He admitted that if a person walks from the police station to the Court of JFCM, it would take 2O minutes to reach the JFCM Court. In his cross-examination, P.W. 16 stated that the patrolling stalf on the night might have stopped the TATA Sumo which was driven by P.W. 1 1, while taking the deceased to the Osmania Generaf Hospital. P.W. 11 was declared hostile to the prosecution case However, P.W. 11 stated that the dead body of the deceased was taken in his TATA Sumo. Before going to the hospital, one Sub-Inspector of Police asked him to go to the Hyderabad urgently stating that one person was sertous.

Further, S.I insisted that one had to accompany him and accordingly he went along with the S.I to the

1,4 vikarabad Government Hospita-l. There he saw the deceased and blood was oozing from his body. From the Vikarabad Hospital, deceased was shifteci to osmania General Hospitat where he was declared as brought dead. Then, p.W. 11 returned to Vikarabad.

25. P.W. 17 is the Investigating Oflicer, who has taken over the investigation from P.w. 16 after registration of crime. p.w. 17 stated ttrat he went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence parrchanama. Thereafter, he went to the hospital, vikarabad and recorded statements of p.W. 1, 4, p.W.9 a'.d others. Then inquest was conducted. The dead body was then shifted to the mortua_ry after autopsy was conducted.

26. The majn witnesses are p.Ws.4 and 9, who are projected as eye witnesses to the incident. Though, both p.ws.4 and 9 claimed that they were attacked by the appellarrts/Al to A5 ad ottrers, however, neither P.W.4 nor p.W.9 received any injuries. Both P.ws.4 and 9 admitted that the police station was at a distance of 7z kilometer. It is not known as to why no compraint was rrled immediately after the incident, which has taken place around io.o0 a.m. P.W.4 admits that he was examined by a police offrcer at 2.OO

a.m or 2.3O a.m. The said fact is not stated by either p.Ws.16 or l7/Investigating Officers in the case. According to p.W. 16, for t}le f,rrst time, they came to know about murder at 6.0O a.m. If the incident happened at half kilometer distance from police station, it is highly improbabre that the police would not know about the incident. P.W.4 spoke about the presence of A1 to ,46 when the attack had taken place. He did not speak about A7 to ALT. However, P.W.9 speaks about A1 to A6 along with others totaling 5O persons, who attacked the deceased, p.w.4, p.w.9 on the date of the incident. Contradictory narrations are gtven by p.Ws.4 and 9 regarding number ofpersons who attacked the deceased. No reason was given either by p.Ws. 1,4 or p.W.9 as to why complaint was not lodged immediately after coming to know about the incident in t].

e night. None of the witnesses explained about the delay in lodging the complaint till 6.OO a.m. The complaint reached the Magistrate at 11.O0 a.m, though p.W. 16 admitted that FIR was dispatched immediately. Further in the cross-examination of p.W. 16, he stated that it would take 10 to 15 minutes to reach the Court and 20 minutes by walk.

P.Ws.4 and 9 being eye witnesses to the incident. As already discussed, though several persons were armed with sticks, crowbars etc., and attacked P.W.4, P.W.9, deceased and others, P.Ws.4 and 9 did not receive aly injuries nor anyone else other than the deceased. No reason is given as to why none of ttrem went to the police station, which was at a distance of % kilometer where ttre incident has taken place.

27. The learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the fact that P.W. 11 spoke about a Sub-Inspector of Police asking him to take the deceased from Vikarabad Hospital to Osmania Hospital in Hyderabad. P.W. 16 stated in his cross-examination that the police patrolling might have asked P.W. 11 to shift the body to Osmania Hospital. It is evident that the police had knowledge about ttre incident on the night itself. However, for reasons best known, the investigating oflicer has come up with a different story. 2a. The Honble Supreme Court in case of Rajeerran aad another held that prosecution not satisfactorily explaining the delay in lodging tJ:e complaint and delay in dispatching of the FIR to the Magrstrate casts any amount of doubt regarding the version given

t7 by the prosecution witnesses' In the present case' the incident has taken place at 10.00 p'm, within ha-lf kilometer from the police station and the complaint was {i1ed only at 6'OO a'm on the next day, with a delay of eight hours' Though JFCM Court was at a distance of 10 to 15 minutes, FIR reached the Magistrate court only at 1l.OO a.m. From the tirne of the incident till the complaint reached the Court, it was nearly 13 hours' In the present facts' it was for the prosecution to explain convincingly the reason for lodging FIR with a delay and the FIR reaching ttre Court also with a delay. Further, no reasons are given as to why the police had not taken any action in registering a FIR when P'W'4 was examined at2 -1 or 2.30 a.m when the patrolling staff had asked P'W'11 to take the \,) deceased to Osrnania HosPital.

)

29. P.w.9 stated t].at there were around 5o persons who attacked the deceased and others' P'W'4 conirned his narrative to six accused i.e., A1 to A6. The police charge sheeted 17 persons and ttreCourthadconvictedfivepersons.Consideringallthefactors, there arises arry amount of doubt regard'ing the prosecution version and it is apparent that the earliest version was suppressed' The

lodging of complaint, going to the police, naming the accused appea-rs to have been made after due deliberations. 30' For .he reasons discussed above, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.

31. In the result, the judgment of trial court in s.c.No. 1 of 2or2, dated 31.12.2016 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Since all the appellalts a.e on bail, their bail bonds shait stand discharged.

32.

Accordingly, all Criminal Appeals are allowed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ cTt N OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) To,

1. The Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District (with records, lf any)

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad

3. The Station House Officer, Vikarabad PS, Vikarabad District

The Superintendent, Cherlapally, Central Prison, Ranga Reddy District 11 LR Copies rl Tle.Under Secretary, Union of lndia t\i{inistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi \ ti The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabid Tyo CCs lo the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUTI One CC to Sri T Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 9.

One CC to Smt C Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 10.

11.

One CC to.Sri Mohd Muzaffer Ullah Khan, Advocate IOPUCI 12.

One CC to Sri S M Rafee, Advocate IOPUCj Two CD Copies 13.

VA/gh @z

jHIGH COURT DATED:3111212A24 I I t / I I aI:l 'i I 1 HE Si Ie 16:

oo 2 I Jiii ?[25 ( COMMON JUDGMENT t q.O .S,ATCP CRLA.Nos.113,120,214 & 433 of 2017 LLOWNG ALL THE APPEALS )\ \e}