MOHD ZAHEER AHMED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A . 1 and A.2 in S.C. No. 310 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, were tried for the offence of causing the death of Sri C. Shiva Krishna Reddy, in the intervening night of 10/11.07.2008 at Sultan -Ka -Dayara, a Muslim Graveyard, at Hyderabad. A complaint, Ex. P. 1, in this behalf, was submitted by P.W. 1, Mohd. Baber, a Mutavalli of the Graveyard, before the Madannapet Police Station. He stated that he came to his house from the graveyard at about midnight, and on the early hours in the morning, when he was walking around the graveyard to water the plants, he found the dead body of a person. It was mentioned that the blood was oozing from the neck portion and mouth, and bloodstained stone was found near the dead body. A motorcycle is also said to have been seen by him. On receiving the complaint, the Inspector of Police - P.W. 9 proceeded to the spot, got the dead body and surroundings photographed, conducted scene of offence panchanama, caused inquest, and sent the dead body for post -mortem examination. The further investigation undertaken by him is said to have revealed that there is involvement of A. 1 and accordingly, he was arrested. On the information given by A. 1, his friend A.2 is said to have apprehended and that mobile phones belonging to those persons were also seized. A charge sheet was filed alleging offence against the accused. On both the accused pleading not guilty, trial was conducted, wherein P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to 14 were filed. M.Os. 1 to 10 were also taken on record. The contradictory statement of P.W. 4 is marked as Ex. D. 1.

(2.) THROUGH its judgment, dated 12.07.2010, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and imposed the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. While A. 1 filed Crl. A. No. 1021 of 2010, A. 2 filed Crl. A. No. 905 of 2010.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that notwithstanding the fact that there is no direct evidence, the prosecution was able to place the circumstantial evidence in the form of conversation undertaken between A. 1 and A. 2 through their cell phones, to liquidate the deceased. She contends that P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased, clearly stated that A. 1 used to come to her house frequently and she has last seen the deceased in the company of A. 1.