IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1066 OF 2016 DATE: 01-05-2026 Between The State being represented through Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special Crimes Branch, Chennai. .. Appellant - Complainant Vs.

1. Mr. Ribu John Varughis (died)

2. Mr. Syed Abdul rasool Chagla .. Respondents - Accused This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the appellant - complainant and Mr. V. Surender Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - accused No.2.

2. This appeal is filed by the CBI challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2015 in S.C. No.51 of 2011 passed by learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, learned trial Court acquitted the respondents - accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections - 120-B read with 325, 302 and 201 of IPC.

3. The charge against both the accused is that accused No.1 caused grievous hurt on the head of his wife - Ansu which made her unconscious and both the accused acting in conspiracy hanged Ansu while she was unconscious condition with the intention to kill her and with the knowledge that she would die, if hanged and caused disappearance of evidence to escape from legal punishment for the commission of offences of causing grievous hurt and murder by projecting falsely that Ansu committed suicide by hanging with a ‘chunni’ from the window bar in the bed room of the SOC Flat and thereby both the accused committed the aforesaid offences.

4. The case on hand was investigated by three different Agencies; initially by the Local Police, subsequently by the CB CID and thereafter by the CBI. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of CBI laid charge sheet against both the accused.

5. Learned trial Court took the same on file vide S.C. No.51 of

2011 by taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Learned trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections - 120-B read with 325, 302 and 201 of IPC and proceeded with trial. During trial, PWs.1 to 53 were examined and Exs.P1 to P137 were marked and MOs.1 and 2 were exhibited on behalf of the CBI. DW.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D32 and Ex.C1 were marked on behalf of the accused.

6. After hearing both sides, learned trial Court acquitted both the accused of the aforesaid charges. Challenging the same, the CBI preferred the present appeal.

7. During pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1 herein - accused No.1 died on 03.11.2018. Learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 filed a memo on 04.02.2026 to that effect. Vide order dated 18.03.2026, this Court abated the appeal against respondent No.1 herein - accused No.1.

8. In view of the above, we confined the present appeal to respondent No.2 - accused No.2 only. However, before dealing with the role of accused No.2 in commission of offences, it would be apt to refer the evidence available on record against both the accused and the investigation done by the aforesaid three different Agencies.

9. According to PW.5 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, on 19.06.2006 at about 12:00 hours, he received information through hand set stating that one lady committed suicide in her bed room in Flat No.A3, Banjara Saman Apartments, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Based on the said information, he informed the constables posted at outpost and instructed them to visit the scene of offence, and also passed information to the Inspector of Police, who in turn instructed him to visit the scene of offence.

Accordingly, he went to the scene of offence.

i) PW.5 further deposed that on examination of the scene of offence, he found that the deceased was hanging to the grill of the window with chunni. Such hanging was partial as her left knee was touching to the fl