Eyewitness testimony lacking proper identification procedures cannot be relied upon for conviction, particularly when discrepancies and doubts exist in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

The present criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3, aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2018 in SC No.181 of 2014, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy and Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused No.1 and accused No.2 (acquitted) are the sons of accused Nos.3 and 4 (acquitted) (A4 is the second wife of A3), and they are residents of Rahmathpura near Bahadurpura area, Hyderabad city. PW8 is the first wife of A3 and the mother of the deceased. PWs.1, 9, and 10 are PW8’s sons through A3. PW12 is the widow of the deceased, and she resides in the house situated at Chandulal Baradari area, Hyderabad City, which is in the name of PW9. There are about 12 mulgies situated at Rahamathpura area, registered in the name of PW8. There are 2 mulgies situated at Abids, one in the name of deceased, and another in the name of PW10. There was a dispute in sharing the rents of mulgies among accused, PW9, and her sons for a long time.

4. While so, on 06.06.2013, at about 03.30 P.M., the deceased left the house to attend his job at Bank of America in Hitech City. The deceased used to walk up to the Metro Theatre and catch the company vehicle. At about 04.00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on foot from Bahadurpura X Roads to Kamatipura, (near Rama Theatre) A1 allegedly attacked the deceased with a knife and fled. PW18, the Inspector of Police, Bhahadurpura Police Station, received a call on the 100 number about the incident at 04.20 PM and rushed to the scene, which is half a kilometre away from the police station. As the deceased was found dead in a pool of blood, PW18 shifted the dead body to the mortuary, Osmania General Hospital. PW18 then observed the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P15, the crime details/observation report, and concluded it by 05.00 PM after examining PWs.2 to 7.

5. It is said that PW18 found the driving licence/Ex.P14 of the deceased at the scene, and he made arrangements to inform the family members of the deceased staying in the said address. Accordingly, the police went to the house of the deceased, and informed PW1 to go over to mortuary and indentify the body. Accordingly, PW1 went to mortuary, identified the body and thereafter went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1/complaint, based on which PW18 registered a case in Crime No.126 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 109 of IPC, and issued Ex.P16/FIR, and sent the FIR to the concerned Court.

6. During investigation, PW18 examined PW1 and recorded his statement. On the next day, PW18 examined PWs.8 to 12, and others, and held inquest-Ex.P6 over the dead body, and seized MOs.1, 2, and 7 to 11 under the seizure report Ex.P10, in the presence of PWs.13 and 14, and sent the body for post-mortem examination. It is said that, on 09.06.2013, A1 to A3 were apprehended and their confession-cum-seizure panchanams were recorded in the presence of PWs.13 and 15.

7. The charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer/PW18 against the appellants, who were arrayed as accused Nos.1, 3, and two others. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused Nos.1 and 3 were complicit in committing the offence of murder of the deceased, and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 4 for lack of evidence.

8. The learned counsel for the appe