Telangana High Court
Syed Wahab vs State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2026
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
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.183 OF 2019
DATE: 16-04-2026
Between:
Mr. Syed Wahab S/o Munawar .. Appellant - Accused
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyd. .. Respondent - Complainant
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 31.01.2019 in S.C. No.740 of 2016 passed by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.
2
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.
4. The charge levelled against the appellant herein is that on 02.11.2015 at about 7.00 P.M., he quarreled with the deceased - Immadi Karthik Reddy S/o Damodhar Reddy in front of Sai Sree Power System Work Shop, Subash Nagar, and thereby beat the deceased with a granite stone on his head and caused his death.
5. On receipt of Ex.P1 - report from the father of the deceased (PW.1) on 02.11.2015 at 21:45 hours, PW.11 - Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.970 of 2015 under Section - 302 of IPC, issued Ex.P10 - express FIR and took up investigation. After completion of due formalities, such as examination of witnesses, recording their statements, securing the panch witnesses and drawing panchanama in their presence, taking steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, recording confessional statements of accused and receipt of post- 3
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 mortem examination report and FSL report etc., the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The same was committed to the Sessions Court which has taken on file as S.C. No.740 of 2016 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.
6. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.
7. During trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and MOs.1 to 8 was exhibited. No evidence, both oral and documentary, was let in by the accused.
8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed sentence of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended as follows:
4
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 i. There are contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses.
ii. There is variance in number of injuries inflicted upon the deceased between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the post-mortem examination report.
iii. Motive on the part of the accused was not proved by the prosecution.
iv. The accused was implicated in the present case falsely. v. The trial Court did not consider all the aforesaid aspects. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as under:
i. There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence. ii. There is direct evidence through PW.3 in whose presence the appellant - accused committed the aforesaid offence. iii. There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 5
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 iv. The appellant is a suspect sheet of Jagathgirigutta Police Station and several criminal cases were registered against him. v. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, the trial Court convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the appeal.
11. In view above rival submissions, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Sections - 302 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
12. Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses would reveal that PW.1 is the father of the deceased who gave Ex.P1 - report with the police and thereby set the criminal law in motion. PW.3 is the friend of the deceased and he is the eye-witness to the occurrence.
13. PW.3, the friend of the deceased, deposed that on 02.11.2015 at 9.30 A.M., he visited the house of the deceased - Karthik Reddy and they left the home by 11.00 A.M. in a Car 6 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 belonging to the brother of the deceased. He drove the car on that day. They initially proceeded to a Wine Shop situated at Jeedimetla Bus Depot, where the deceased purchased liquor and then proceeded to Suraram where the deceased consumed liquor and from there they proceeded to Ramaram Wines at Ramaram Village, where the deceased again purchased liquor. Wahab (accused) met them there and accompanied them. From there, three of them went to Ramaram village side, where they consumed liquor. At that time, he was driving the car, while the deceased and the accused were in the back seat. They were all consuming the liquor and he was driving the car. Then they proceeded near Subash Nagar Pipe Line Road Wines, where they stopped the car. They again consumed beer at that place and the accused and deceased consumed liquor while sitting in the back side of the car.
i) PW.3 further deposed that thereafter, the accused requested him to drop him at his house. The deceased intimated the accused that there is a shortage of petrol in the car and asked the accused to go in an auto-rickshaw. In that connection, quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased as the accused questioned as to how can he refuse to drop him at his house and the deceased told it is not of his 7 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 business to drop at his house, on which the quarrel went on and the accused pushed away the deceased from the car due to which the deceased fell on the road. Thereafter, the accused took a stone on the road and beat the deceased on his head with that stone. Thereafter, the accused ran away from that place. The deceased died on the spot.
The accused is responsible for the death of the deceased. He was examined by the police and recorded his statement. MO.1 is the stone used by the accused for beating the deceased. He identified the accused while in witness box in the Court Hall.
ii) During cross-examination, he admitted that he used to stay in Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Shapur for the last twenty years along with his family members. The deceased is his friend from school days. He is doing driving for the last 10 years. The distance between his house and the deceased is about 4 kilometers. He knows the accused and his family members even prior to the incident. The accused immediately after pushing the deceased from the Car, get down from the car and thrown a stone on the head of the deceased and immediately ran away from the spot. It was happened about 7.00 P.M. He admitted that after his getting down from the car the incident already happened. After 8 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 seeing the incident, he became shock, as such, he did not intimate the incident either to the police or to the parents of the deceased.
14. In this case, the prosecution also examined PWs.4, 5 and 7, who said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW.4 deposed that he used to manufacture panel boards under the name and style 'Sri Sai Balaji Electrical Engineering Works, Subash Nagar, Jeedimetla. On 02.11.2015 evening hours at about 5.00 P.M., while he along with his brother was in their workshop, a car was stopped in front of his shop and that car was giving nuisance as well gives sound, then initially he thought of some mechanical problem of the said car. Sometime thereafter, he heard big and loud voices from the car, then he went there and asked the persons what is the problem, then one person stated his name as Wahab and further stated to him by directing that do not intervene in their conversation as well altercation. By then, all the three were in a drunken state, as such, he went inside. Sometime later, at around 7.00 P.M., he heard big sound from a person, then he came out and found a person was in a pool of blood, then he questioned the other person standing there who stated to him that the said Waheb hit the person, who was fallen on ground with a granite 9 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 stone and thereafter the person who told him became unconscious due to over drinking. On enquiry, he came to know that his name is Shyamsundar and the person who was fallen on the road with head injuries is Karthik Reddy. Then, he tried to call 108 Ambulance, but 108 ambulance people said it would take time to come there. Then, he went inside and got the police station number from paper and telephoned the police, Jeedimetla about the incident. Thereafter, the police examined him and his statement was also recorded.
15. PW.5 deposed that he is doing iron scrap business at Jeedimetla and his shop is situated at Subash Nagar. He saw the accused and he has no prior acquaintance with him. He knows PW.4. He further deposed that about three (03) years back in the evening at about 4.00 P.M, three persons stopped a car in front of his shop, which is a 40 feet road and those persons after parking the car and consumed the alcohol, later they were quarrelling with each other. Though he saw the same as they were in intoxication, he did not intervene. He further deposed that at about 6.30 P.M. the accused took a granite stone and beat the deceased on his head. When they went and tried to stop the accused, he also revolved on them. Then 10 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 they themselves restrained as they were in intoxication and as the person fell on the ground with head injury, he asked PW.4 to give intimation to the police. The person on whom the granite stone was fallen due to hit by the accused died then and there. The police examined him and recorded his statement.
16. PW.7 deposed that he is a resident of Venkateswara Nagar, Jagathgirigutta. PW.4 is his brother. He was working in the work shop at the relevant point of time. He identified the accused while giving evidence in the Court Hall. While he was working in the shop located in front of the incident occurred, on 02.11.2015 at about 7.00 P.M., three persons came in a car and consuming alcohol by sitting in the car. While consuming alcohol, there was a heated exchange of words. In the mean time, two persons came out of the car and one person taken a stone into his hand and beat on other person on his head with that stone. The accused took the stone and beat the deceased. Thereafter, the accused ran way from there. His brother informed the incident to the police. The police also examined him and recorded his statement.
11
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019
17. Perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that PW.3 is the eye-witness to the incident. He categorically deposed with regard to the commission of offence committed by the accused. His evidence is supported by the other ocular testimonies of PWs.4, 5 and 7 in the manner stated above. PWs. 4, 5, and 7 are not interested witnesses with any motive to falsely implicate the accused; on the contrary, their evidence corroborates the testimony of the eye-witness (PW.3) regarding the commission of the offence by the accused.
18. PW.1 is the father of the deceased. He deposed with regard to giving Ex.P1 - report with the police on coming to know the incident and commission of offence by the accused. MO.1 is the said stone with which the accused beat the deceased. Like-wise, PW.2 deposed that PW.1 is his junior paternal uncle. He does finance business. On 02.11.2015 at 8.00 P.M., while he was in the house, he received a phone call from LW.2, mother of the deceased, stating that the accused committed murder of the deceased. Immediately he reached the scene of offence and found the dead body was lying on the road. On his enquiry, PW.3 stated that the accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other and though PW.3 tried to 12 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 pacify the situation, the accused did not heed his advice and attacked upon the deceased with a stone and hit him. The police also examined him and his statement was recorded.
19. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 also supports the evidence of PW.3 to the extent of giving information by PW.3 to them and thereafter PW.1 giving Ex.P1 - report to the police and reaching the scene of offence and conducting investigation by the police etc.
20. PW.6 is a panch witness for scene of offence, panchanama and seizure of material objects. He deposed that he does cloth business at Vinayakanagar, Quthbullapur, which is near to the place of incident. As per instructions of police, he reached the scene of offence which is situated on 40 feet road at Subash Nagar and noticed a dead body lying on the road. Adjacent to the dead body, there is granite stone stained with blood and also find Maruthi Zen Car at a distance of 5 to 6 feet to the dead body. In his presence, the police taken the blood stains on a cotton swab and also taken control earth from the scene of offence and also taken the earth which does not have the blood and all were seized in his presence. MO.2 is the controlled 13 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 earth and MO.3 is the blood stained earth. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence report and Ex.P3 is the rough sketch.
21. PW.11, the Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station, deposed with regard to receipt of Ex.P1 - report from PW.1, registration of the same as in Crime No.970 of 2015 under Section - 302 of IPC and issuance of express FIR and its dispatch to the concerned Magistrate. He further deposed that during investigation, he examined PW.1 and the scene of offence as well as dead body. Then, he recorded the statement of mother of the deceased (LW.2), PW.2 and PW.3. Then, he got the dead body photographed and thereafter took steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body by the doctor. He further deposed that he secured two mediators PW.6 and LW.10 and in their presence, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized blood stained granite stone (MO.1), collected blood stains from the granite stone with cotton swab and collected blood stained earth and also controlled earth of blood under cover of panchanama (Ex.P2). He also drew the rough sketch of scene of offence as in Ex.P3. Later, he shifted the dead body to Gandhi Hospital. Thereafter, on 03.11.2015, he again visited the scene of offence and examined PW.4, 5, 7 and LW.8 and recorded their 14 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 statements. He also took steps for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and seized MOs.6 to 8. Then, he arrested the accused on 04.11.2015 and in the presence of PW.9 and LW.14, the accused confessed to have committed the offence. Pursuant thereto, the accused led them to his residence, where he recovered blood stained cloths which he worn at the time of offence and seized which are MOs.4 and 5 (blood stained blue colour pant & blood stained blue colour white flowered designed shirt) in the presence of PW.9 and LW.14. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the concerned Magistrate.
i) He further deposed that on receipt of post-mortem examination report and FSL, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
22. PW.8, panch witness for inquest report, also deposed with regard to conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P4 is the inquest report.
23. PW.9 is also a panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused. He is the then Village Revenue Officer, Jeedimetla. In his presence and in the presence of LW.14, the accused 15 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 confessed that on 02.11.2015 at about 6.00 P.M., he had quarreled with the deceased and in that process; he beat the deceased with a stone, resulting the death of the deceased on the spot. The reason for quarrel, the deceased stated that after consuming alcohol, the accused asked the deceased to drop him where he was picked up, for which the deceased refused to his request, therefore, quarrel took place among them, for which the accused took a stone and beat the deceased with the same and he died on the spot. Pursuant to the said confession, the accused led them to his house, where they seized MOs.4 and 5. Ex.P5 is the relevant para in confession statement, while Ex.P6 is the seizure report.
24. PW.10 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found ante- mortem injuries over the deceased body. According to him, cause of death was by hitting with medium size object. The death was due to head injury. Ex.P7 is the PME report given by him.
25. Perusal of the said evidence would reveal that PW.3 is the friend of the deceased and present throughout the incident, and his 16 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 evidence clearly narrates the movement of all three i.e., deceased, accused and PW.3; consumption of alcohol at multiple places; quarrel over dropping the accused at his house; and the accused pushed deceased from the car, picked up stone (MO.1), hit on the head of the deceased and the instantaneous death of the deceased. He also identified the MO.1 with which the accused beat the deceased. Thus, PW.3's evidence is direct, natural, consistent and credible. Therefore, his evidence is reliable. As far as PWs.4, 5 and 7 are concerned, they are independent eye-witnesses and do not have any personal interest or motive. Their evidence proves the presence of three persons in the Car, consuming alcohol and quarrels among them; accused hitting the deceased with stone; and death occurring on the spot. Therefore, their evidence is corroborative and they had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Their testimonies strengthen PW.3's version. PW.1 & PW.2 are circumstantial/supporting witnesses. PW.1 (father of the deceased) gave Ex.P1 - report with the police, who registered a case in crime and took up the investigation, while PW.2, relate of the deceased confirms what PW.3 told him. Thus, though they are not eye-witnesses, their evidence supports the chain of events and prompts reporting. PW.6, PW.8 and PW.9 are panch witnesses. 17
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019 Their evidence supports procedural aspects in conducting investigation and establishes recovery of granite stone (MO.1) and seizure of incriminating material (MOs.4 & 5). PW.11 is the Investigating Officer, who registered FIR; conducted investigation, collected evidence and laid charge sheet. Thus, his evidence also establishes proper investigation and collection of evidence. PW.10 is the doctor. He conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. His findings are that head injury was caused by blunt object (stone) and the death was due to head injury. Thus, his evidence fully corroborates ocular evidence.
26. Further, perusal of record would also reveal that the accused had criminal background. Even in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has shown as many as 21 crimes registered against him, whereas in the letter dated 02.03.2026 addressed by Sub- Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla Police Station to the Public Prosecutor, 21 crimes have been registered against the accused and the same are as under:
Sl.No. Crime No./C.C. No. & offences Pending/Disposed of
01. CC No.11/2006 for the offence u/Sec.382 IPC Ended in conviction
02. CC No.12/2006 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC -do-
03. Cr.No.405/2005 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC Un-detected
04. CC No.13/2006 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC Ended in conviction
05. CC No.972/2005 for the offence u/Sec.394 IPC -do-
06. CC No.659/2007 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC Ended in acquittal 18 KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019
07. CC No.677/2007 for the offence u/Sec.394 IPC Ended in acquittal
08. Cr.No.530/2009 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC (PT CC --
No.542/2009)
09. Cr.No.531/2009 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC (PT CC --
No.548/2009)
10. CC No.544/2009 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC Ended in conviction
11. CC No.986/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC -do-
12. CC No.982/2012 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC -do-
13. CC No.980/2012 for the offences u/Sec.448 & 382 IPC -do-
14. Cr.No.573/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC (PT CC --
No.49/2013)
15. CC No.897/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC Ended in conviction
16. CC No.51/2013 for the offences u/Secs.457, 380 & 511 IPC Ended in conviction
17. CC No.984/2012 for the offence u/Sec.382 IPC -do-
18. CC No.705/2012 for the offence u/Sec.379 IPC -do-
19. CC No.985/2012 for the offences u/Secs.457 & 380 IPC -do-
20. SC No.508/2015 for the offence u/Sec.307 IPC Ended in Acquittal
21. CC No.1169/2014 for the offence u/Sec.384 IPC -do-
27. In view of the above, it is clear that the accused had criminal background. But, under the principles of criminal jurisprudence and as reflected in provisions under Sections - 53 and 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, bad character or past convictions cannot be used to conclude that the accused committed the present offence. In some situations, prior conduct may be looked at indirectly if the defence claims false implication and good character, then prosecution may rebut by showing prior convictions. However, every case must be decided on its own evidence. Therefore, the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused had criminal back ground and the same must be considered in this case is unsustainable.19
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019
28. In view of the aforesaid evidence, this Court finds a complete and consistent chain i.e., PW.3 (direct eye-witness) narrates the incident as to in which manner the accused committed the aforesaid offence; PWs.4, 5 and 7 - independent witnesses corroborates the evidence of PW.3; medical evidence through PW.10 supports cause of death and recovery of clothes. There are no major contradictions or gaps in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Thus, PW.3's evidence is credible and trustworthy. His testimony is corroborated by independent witnesses and medical evidence. Therefore, the prosecution successfully proved that the accused caused death intentionally by hitting with granite stone (MO.1). Therefore, the ingredients of murder (Section - 302 of IPC) are satisfied.
29. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused for the charge under Section - 302. There is no perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of evidence warranting interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be confirmed, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20
KL,J & BRMR,J Crl.A. No.183 of 2019
30. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded and imposed against the appellant - accused vide judgment dated 31.01.2019 in S.C. No.740 of 2016 by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Rangareddy District.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J ____________________________ B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 16th April, 2026 Mgr