Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) Accused No.1 also suffered financially owning to the aforesaid cases, and thereby all the family members vexed with the series of events in the hands of deceased No.1 and his family members. Thus, accused No.1 and his family members bore grudge against deceased No.1 and his family members and decided to eliminate them. In pursuance of their plan, accused No.1 made recce at the house of deceased No.1 i.e., H.No.2-3-647/A/360, Premnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, and later hours observed the movements of the inmates. On 29.05.2010 at about 11.00 P.M., accused No.2 visited the house of deceased No.1 and noticed that all the vehicles are inside the house and confirmed availability of the family members of deceased No.1, he went and informed accused No.1 and other family members.
With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents -
accused sought to dismiss the appeal.

15. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the point that arises for consideration is:

. (1994) 5 SCC 188 . 2023 INSC 241 . 1990 SCC (Cri) 283 . (2023) 5 SCC 391 KL,J & JS,J Whether the acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offences is sustainable, both on facts and in law?

16. As already stated above, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22. PW.1, the complainant, is the wife of deceased No.3 and daughter-in-law of deceased Nos.1 and 2; PW.2, the daughter of deceased Nos.1 and 2 is the circumstantial witness; PWs.3 to 6 are eye-witnesses to the incident; PWs.7 and 8 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence observation-cum-seizure panchanama; PW.9 is the panch witness for inquest of deceased No.1; PW.10 is panch witness for inquest of deceased Nos.2 and 5; PW.11 is panch witness for inquest of deceased No.3; PW.12 is panch witness for inquest of deceased No.4; PWs.13 and 14 are panch witnesses for confession- cum-seizure panchanama of accused Nos.1 to 8; PW.15 is the doctor, who treated accused No.1 for the injuries he sustained in the incident and issued Ex.P41 - wound certificate; PW.16 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 to 5; PW.17 is the Clues Team Officer, CCS, Hyderabad, who visited the scene of offence and collected material objects; PW.18 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, who conducted inquest over the body of the deceased No.2; PW.19 is the Inspector of Police, KL,J & JS,J Saidabad Police Station, who conducted inquest over the bodies of deceased Nos.4 and 5; PW.20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, who conducted inquest over the body of the deceased No.3; PW.21, the Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, is the first Investigating Officer, who issued FIR and conducted inquest over the body of deceased No.1; and PW.22 is the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses and laid charge sheet.

a) During the cross-examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, PW.7 admitted that the police seized the pieces of broken bangles (MO.2) at the scene of offence.

b) During the cross-examination by the accused, this witness admitted that the house of deceased No.1 is surrounded by residential houses. There are about 25 houses between his house and the house of deceased No.1. The Amberpet police used to call him as panchayatdar whenever any incident takes place in that locality. About 10 to 25 people were inside the house of deceased No.1. Later on, about 500 to 600 people gathered there. There was lot of KL,J & JS,J commotion at that house. Ex.P6 was not drafted on his dictation or on the dictation of his friend (PW.8). He was there for about 10 to 15 minutes. Since the police asked him to sign on Exs.P6 and P7, he signed on them. He does not know Telugu contents in Ex.P6. He is in the habit of putting the date under his signature. In Ex.P7, he did not put the date under his signature. His particulars are not mentioned in Ex.P7.

25. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents that there is delay in lodging the complaint. As stated supra, the incident had occurred at about 6.15 A.M. She informed the said incident to the husband of PW.2, Mohd. Ather, and her father. Mohd. Ather informed 108 Ambulance. There were five (05) murders and all the deceased are her family members. Deceased No.3 is her husband. All the injured persons were taken to the Osmania General KL,J & JS,J Hospital in 108 Ambulance. The doctors at Osmania General Hospital declared deceased Nos.1 to 4 dead. Deceased No.5 died after two (02) days. It was a panic situation to PW.1 and she is a woman. Even the police reached the scene of offence within 10 or 15 minutes. PW.21, Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, specifically deposed that on 30.05.2010 at about 6.30 or 6.45 A.M., their police received telephonic information to its landline by an unknown person stating that there was a murder at Premnagar, Amberpet. At that time, he was in the police station after doing his night duty. Immediately, on receipt of the said telephonic information, he rushed to the scene of offence at Premnagar. There was a pool of crowd. He secured the services of 108 Ambulance and got shifted the injured persons to Osmania General Hospital. He observed scene of offence. By the time Ambulance left for the hospital, it was about 7.30 A.M. On that day at about 10.00 A.M., he received written report (Ex.P1) from PW.1.