SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

TELANGANA HIGH COURT
K. Lakshman and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ.
State of Telangana – Appellant
versus
Mohd. Abdul Kaleem and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1292 of 2017
Decided on 8.6.2026

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Public Prosecutor (TG)
For the Respondent: H. Prahalada Reddy

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Suspicion however may be strong cannot take place of proof – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’.
(2) Criminal conspiracy – Core of conspiracy is meeting of minds for an unlawful purpose – It requires some physical manifestation of that agreement.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B, 307 and 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1)(A) of Arms Act, 1959 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 419] – Criminal conspiracy, attempt to murder and murder – Appeal against acquittal – Most of crucial witnesses did not support case of prosecution – Circumstances relied upon by prosecution were not proved by reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence – All links in chain of circumstances are not complete as there are several missing links due to non-support by several crucial witnesses or partial support – There is no evidence at all to show that recovered items were used in blast – There is no evidence to show accused and deceased were last seen together or any meeting of minds taken place between them as part of conspiracy – Ultimately, prosecution could prove strong suspicion against accused persons, but suspicion however may be strong cannot take place of proof – Prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused for offences they are charged with – Judgment of acquittal affirmed. (Paras 77, 78, 79 and 80)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Criminal conspiracy – Ingredients – Conspiracy is typically hatched in secrecy and can be proved through conduct of parties and inferences from established facts – Core of conspiracy is meeting of minds for an unlawful purpose – It requires some physical manifestation of that agreement – Conspirators do not need to be present at scene of crime or even known every other member of conspiracy – Common design is sufficient for conviction. (Para 73.1)

Result: Acquittal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.—This Memorandum of Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(3) & (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the acquittal of A4, A5 and A15 to A19 in SC No.359 of 2006 dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases Cum VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

2. Appellant is the complainant and respondents No.1 to 7 are A4, A5, A15 to A19 in SC No.359 of 2006.

3. Respondent No.6 – A18 failed to appear inspite of service of notice in the Appeal. We have appointed Sri R.Prashanth, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae for A18.

4.1. The case of the prosecution is as under:

On 12.10.2005, PW.1 – M.Venkata Rao was on sentry/guard duty at City Task Force Office, Begumpet from 1900 hours to 2200. PW.2 - Vivekananda has performed the sentry duty from 1600 hours to 1900 hours. Deceased No.1 – Satyanarayana (Home Guard) (herein after will be referred to as D1) was present at the office. LW.2 – P.Hari Krishna was attending his duties in the control room of Task Force office from 1400 hours to 2000 hours. At about 1930 hours, PW.1 felt thirsty and went near the water cooler located at the corner of the eastern side of the Task Force office, when he was drinking water, he noticed Dalin @ Mohtasim Billal @ Mornin who was medium built, clad in jeans pant, light black colour shirt with light blue colour bag on his back. He immediately rushed into the office building, within no time there was a blast sound and huge smoke prevailed all over the Task Force office. PW.1 received simple injuries over his face and collar bone and after few minutes when smoke cleared off, PW.1 could see D1 found lying dead in front of the office. Most of the building parts shattered and blown off. He also found truncated head of Dalin @ Mohtasim Billal @ Mornin (herein after referred to as D2) in the debris. LW.2 – P.Hari Krishna and PW.2 who were present in the premises of the said Task Force office were unhurt. PW.39 – V.Raja Rao and PW.50 - R.Gopala Raju arrived to the scene of offence. PW.1 was shifted to Hospital. PW.39 recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered a case in Crime No.1037 of 2005 under Sections 302, 307, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

4.2. LW.80 – B.V.S. Naidu took up the investigation in the case, secured the presence of panch witnesses and clues team, FSL experts i.e., LW.68-U.Ram Mohan Rao and PW.54 – T.Suresh. PW.50 drafted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators on 12.10.2005 at 2145 hours and seized the blood stained earth, controlled earth, watch which was indicating the time as 1930 hours, wearing clothes of D1. PW.50 again conducted panchanama of the scene of offence on 13.10.2005 at 0630 hours and seized materials like pieces of wire, metal, piece of black colour bag, a pair of brown leather slipper with mark of T-200=00 and a torn piece of paper containing Urdu words written in English with provocative words, he has also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW.50 conducted inquest over the dead body of the D1 and sent it for PME. PW.29 – Dr.Karunakar conducted autopsy over the dead body of D1 and opined that the cause of death was due to multiple punctured wounds. PW.50 gathered all multilated parts of the dead body of D2 and conducted inquest and and sent them for autopsy. PW.28 – Dr.Mohamed. Taqiuddin Khan conducted spot autopsy and opined that the cause of death of D2 was due to blast injuries and the parts belong to a single individual.

4.3. A4 – Mohd Abdul Kaleem @ Arshad Khan met his friend LW.28 – Mohd. Feroz Khan with whom he earlier requested to give shelter to A3 (D2) and informed him about the blasting of City Task Force office and experiences of his training and the activities of A1 – Gulam Yazdani @ Naveed @ Yahya @ Abdullah, A2 – Mohd Abdul Shahed @ Billal and other accused at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top