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

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1061

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. SAM KOSHY, SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, JJ.
Mohd. Shaaker - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 2014
Decided On : 10-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohd. Muzafferullah Khan.

The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 r/w 34 - Section 304 part II - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction for murder - The trial Court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt, particularly questioning the reliability of the sole eyewitness. The court found that while the prosecution established a homicide, it failed to prove intent to kill, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that mere suspicion or ill-feelings is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 20)

(C) Sentencing - The court modified the sentence to eight years of imprisonment under Section 304 part II IPC, maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court. (Paras 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Mohd. Ahmed following the suicide of Mahmooda Begum, allegedly due to harassment by the deceased. The appellant and others attacked the deceased with stones.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution did not establish the appellant's intent to kill, modifying the conviction to Section 304 part II IPC.

Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence to prove intent and the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill, leading to a modification of the conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction modified to Section 304 part II IPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Sambasiva Rao Naidu, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.130 of 2014, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., and the appellant seeks to assail the Judgment dated 07.10.2014, whereunder the trial Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and convicted him under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. The appellant herein was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of (6) months.

2. The appellant herein was charge sheeted along with (3) others with an allegation that all of them have committed an offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, the prosecution has claimed that one Mohd. Ahmed (hereinafter be referred as deceased) was having illegal intimacy with one Mahmooda Begum since two (2) years prior to the alleged offence. However, the deceased started harassing her with a demand of Rs.50,000/- threatening her with dire consequences, if she failed to pay the said amount. In view of the said harassment, said Mahmooda Begum committed suicide on 10.08.2013 by way of hanging and in connection with the said death, a case in crime No.201 of 2013 has been registered by the concerned police under Section 174 Cr.P.C.

3. In view of the said suicidal death, accused Nos. 1 to 4 bore grudge against the deceased and they were waiting for a chance to kill him. The accused No.4 is the father of said Mahmooda Begum. The prosecution has further alleged that on 12.08.2013 at about 09:30 p.m., the deceased visited the area where the accused were staying along with his friend by name Wajid Nawab @ Khaleelullah Shareef who is examined as PW6 during trial, and having noticed the accused at their street, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 attacked him with granite stones and killed him in the spot.

4. On receipt of a complaint from PW1 at midnight of 12/13-08-2013, PW11 the then Inspector of Police, Santoshnagar registered a case about the above stated offence and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he has examined PW1 and other witnesses. He had conducted panchanama at the scene of offence, seized the granite boulders used by the accused in the commission of offence and prepared a rough sketch. He has also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and referred the same for post mortem examination.

5. The prosecution has further claimed that on 13.08.2013 at about 05:00 P.M., the appellant herein and accused No.2 appeared before the Investigating Officer and surrendered before him. PW11 said to have interrogated them in the presence of LW15-Mohd.Khaleel and LW16- Syed Ijaz and said to have recorded the alleged confession of the accused. PW11 having completed the investigation, filed change sheet against all the (4) accused. After completion of committal proceedings and on their appearance, all the accused were examined by the trial Court and were charged under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.

6. The accused have denied the allegations. During trial, the prosecution had examined (11) witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs 1 to 8. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material has been explained to the accused. They have denied the material allegations. The defence of the accused is of total denial.

7. The learned District Judge having appreciated the allegations made in the charge sheet and evidence of PWs 1 to 11, came to the conclusion that though the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, still found accused No.1 i.e., appellant herein, guilty for the said offence and accordingly, acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., but convicted the appellant under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of

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