Mohamed Sameer Khan vs The State Represented By Inspector Of ...

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2024

MOHAMED SAMEER KHAN … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the judgment passed

by the High Court of Judicature at Madras

(hereinafter, “High Court”) dated 28.10.2021,

whereby the appeal preferred by Mohamed Sameer

Khan (hereinafter, “Appellant”) against the order of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 449, JATINDER KAUR Date: 2025.10.29 18:35:16 IST Reason:

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 1 of 30

376 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter, “IPC”) passed by the Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Case,

Coimbatore dated 17.11.2017, had been upheld and

the appeal dismissed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has

asserted that the case of the prosecution is based

upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct

evidence specifically connecting the appellant with

the offence for which he had been accused. Her

further submission is that the Appellant is falsely

implicated. The prosecution has failed to establish

the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt

and has also not probed in the right direction to find

out the truth. No scientific evidence has been led

connecting the Appellant with the crime, and some

important and relevant persons who would have shed

light on the incident have neither been associated in

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 2 of 30 the investigation nor produced in the court. On these

basic assertions, with reference to the facts of the

present case, the challenge is sought to be pressed to

the judgments of the courts below by the learned

Senior Counsel for the Appellant.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the

Respondent-State has submitted that there are

concurrent findings returned by the courts below

holding the Appellant guilty of the offences for which

he was charged and punishment has been handed

out in accordance with law. It has further been

submitted that the prosecution has been able to

prove the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence

leaving no unbroken link in string of events which

pinned down the Appellant to be the person who had

committed the offences. Recovery has been effected

from the Appellant of the two (2) gold bangles worn

by the deceased which he had taken after murdering

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 3 of 30 her. The said recovery has been proved on the basis

of the statement of Raghavan (PW-8) to the effect that

the Appellant produced the said bangles from his

pocket, which were seized and the mahazar report

was prepared. Reference has also been made to the

statement of Senthil Kumar (PW-5) to assert that the

Appellant was seen coming out of the compound

where the deceased was residing. On this basis, he

submits that judgments passed by the courts below

being based on proper appreciation and assessment

of the facts in accordance with law, do not call for any

interference and therefore, the present appeal

deserves to be dismissed.

4. Briefly, the facts in the present case which can be

summarized is that an 85-year-old lady, who lived

alone in a house opposite to the house of her

daughter Deivanai, Complainant (PW-1) who lives in

the same area, was found dead. On 19.12.2016 at

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 4 of 30 5:30 a.m. in the morning, when the son of the

complainant Karunakaran (PW-2) went to the house

where his grandmother resided, he saw the door open

and the deceased lying on the ground. He panicked

and called his mother/Complainant (PW-1) and they

found the deceased strangulated with a towel around

her neck with two gold bangles missing from her

hands. At about 06:30 a.m. on the same day, a

complaint was lodged and First Information Report

(FIR) in Crime No.1119/2016 was registered by Sub

Inspector of Police Padmavathi (PW-15) at Police

Station Rathinapuri, Coimbatore. The investigation

was taken over by Inspector of Police Gopi (PW-16),

who visited the place of occurrence at about 07:15

a.m. Along with him, he associated a fingerprint

expert, a sniffer dog and a photographer. He prepared

the mahazar (Ex. P.2) and specifically collected

samples of blood-stained cement mortar and blood-

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 5 of 30 stained green colour in-skirt. The statements of

witnesses were recorded and inquest report of the

deceased was prepared.

5. During the course of investigation, statements of the

people from around the place of occurrence were

recorded.

6. Statement of Deivanai, Complainant (PW-1) brings

out the factual position that her mother, the

deceased, was residing in the house situated in Door

No. 369 owned by her other daughter living abroad.

The Complainant’s house was Door No. 362 which

was situated in the same vicinity but on the other

side of the road. Every night after serving the

deceased with her dinner, she and her son

Karunakaran (PW-2) would lock the door from the

outside and the next morning the same would be

unlocked in order to enable her mother to come out

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 6 of 30 of the house. On 18.12.2016 at about 09:00 p.m., she

and her son had gone to the house where the

deceased was residing and served her dinner and

thereafter locked the door from outside as usual and

returned to their house. On 19.12.2016, her son

Karunakaran (PW-2) at about 05:30 a.m. went there

to open the door. He found the door already open and

his grandmother, lying on the floor with injuries. He

got scared and called his mother, the Complainant

(PW-1), who came there. She went in and saw her

mother lying dead with two gold bangles missing from

her hands. Similar was the statement of

Karunakaran (PW-2), her son.

7. As per the post-mortem report dated 19.12.2016 at

2:00 p.m., it came to light that the cause of death was

asphyxiation, as she had been killed due to

compression on the neck by a towel. Prior thereto,

she had been put to sexual assault, as per the

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 7 of 30 opinion of the doctor – Dr. Jaisingh (PW-14). The

viscera report as well as the vaginal and uterus

sample analysis were received, which did not really

reflect much as no semen was found.

8. The evidence which was further collected indicated

that Senthil Kumar (PW-5) on the night of the

incident on his way to his house in the

neighbourhood while coming back from Erode, saw

the Appellant coming out of the compound where the

deceased was residing. He questioned him, to which

he responded in Hindi and pointed to the

neighbouring house indicating his place of residence.

Senthil Kumar did not know Hindi and, thus, was

unable to understand as to what the Appellant was

saying but was aware of the fact that Hindi speaking

people were residing nearby. He did not question him

further.

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 8 of 30

9. Thulasi (PW-3) was a neighbour of the Complainant.

She informed that on the night of the occurrence, she

heard the deceased murmur ‘viruta, viruta’ meaning

‘leave me, leave me’ between 02:30 a.m. to 03:00 a.m.

Since the deceased was suffering from senility and

would often murmur in her sleep, she overlooked it.

10. It came to light in the statement of Akash Saksena

(PW-6) that he was residing on rent along with

Akhum and James in the compound near the place

of occurrence. At the request of the two ladies

residing next door on 16.12.2016, he permitted the

Appellant to stay in his room for some days. He was

told by the ladies that the Appellant was from

Manipur, known to them and had come in search of

work. Akash Saksena hosted his birthday party on

18.12.2016 in which he had invited his friends Alilie,

Vimeshite, Nisamo, Akhum, James, Rivas, Manivel,

Marcus. Appellant was also present. The said party

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 9 of 30 continued till late night and Rivas, Nisamo, Akhum,

James, Vikas and Manivel left at 12:00 a.m. in the

night.

10.1 At about 02:00 a.m., the Appellant and Marcus went

out to smoke and stated that they will be returning

soon. After about an hour, Appellant returned and

hurriedly took out an object from his pocket and kept

it in his bag. He looked perturbed and told that he is

going to his friend’s place as he had got a job.

11. In the light of the sudden moving out of the Appellant

from Akash Saksena’s house and that too at 03:00

a.m., he became the prime suspect as per the

prosecution. The State Police was thus, on the

lookout for him. On 22.12.2016 at about 04:00 a.m.,

an informant identified the accused near the over-

bridge of North Coimbatore. Seeing the police party,

Appellant jumped from the over-bridge and hurt

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 10 of 30 himself. The police party took him in custody and as

he was injured, he was taken to the Government

Hospital, Coimbatore at about 04:50 a.m. At about

06:00 a.m., witness Raghavan (PW-8) who knew both

Tamil and Hindi was requested by the police to help

communicate with the Appellant as he did not know

Tamil and knew only Hindi and Manipuri language.

During enquiry at the hospital, the Appellant gave

voluntary confession and produced the gold bangles

from his pocket taken by him from the deceased in

the presence of Raghavan. The bangles were seized

and the mahazar report prepared in front of him.

12. The Magistrate was requested to come, who visited

the hospital at about 11:47 a.m., took help of one Mr.

Prasath, who knew Hindi and enquired about the

injuries of the accused. He informed that he had

fallen down. The Magistrate, thereafter, proceeded to

remand the Appellant to judicial custody.

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 11 of 30

13. After the completion of the investigation, chargesheet

was filed under Sections 449 read with 457, 376, 302

and 394 IPC. On 17.03.2017, the Magistrate took

cognizance of the same and committed the case,

which was assigned for trial to the Additional

Sessions Judge.

14. After the charges were framed and the Appellant

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, sixteen (16)

prosecution witnesses were examined to bring forth

the charges against the accused.

15. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the

statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

was recorded, wherein he denied the questions put to

him. A glaring issue which needs to be pointed out

here is that Appellant categorically stated that he was

picked up from Punjab Restaurant by the police. He

further stated that he received injuries on the left leg

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 12 of 30 because of torture at the hands of police. He denied

being taken into custody from the over-bridge of

North Coimbatore or that he had jumped from there

and injured his leg.

16. The trial court proceeded to hold the Appellant guilty

under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 IPC vide

judgment dated 17.11.2017 and sentenced him to life

imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 10 years

rigorous imprisonment under Sections 449, 376 and

394 IPC, which has been upheld by the High Court

vide judgment dated 28.10.2021, and is under

challenge herein.

17. On perusal of the above evidence, what is apparent is

that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident.

This case, thus, is of circumstantial evidence. The

parameters laid down by the judgements of this

Court and the principles laid therein need to be

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 13 of 30 considered. The said principles have been culled out

in the judgment of this Court in Karakkattu

Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala1,

paragraphs 13 to 15 therein read as follows:

“13. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to mention the principles as have been enunciated and settled by this Court, which would determine the parameters within which the case of the prosecution, if based on circumstantial evidence, is to be tested with regard to the establishment of the offence stated to be committed by the appellant.

14. This Court in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172 :

(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 512] while referring to the various earlier judgments which have been passed by this Court from time to time, summarised key principles which act as a guide for the courts to come to a conclusion with regard to the guilt of an accused in cases which are solely dependent on the circumstantial evidence.

The same have been referred to as the ‘panchsheel principles’ and are discussed in paras 26 to 28 of the said judgment, which read as follows : (SCC p. 181)

‘26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot

1 (2024) 10 SCC 813

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 14 of 30 be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(2003) 9 SCC 67 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1167] and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P. [(2005) 7 SCC 603 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1710] )

27. The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration.

28. In State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3 SCC 114 :

2005 SCC (Cri) 642] this Court observed : (SCC p. 123, para 22) ‘22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of PW 2.’ (See also Bodhraj v. State of J&K [(2002) 8 SCC 45 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 201] .)’

15. Thereafter, the above principles have been reiterated in the subsequent judgments of this Court and hold the field till date.

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 15 of 30 17.1 Based on the above, the principles which need

to be followed in cases of circumstantial

evidence were carved out in paras 16 to 18 of

the above judgement, which read as follows:

16. Thus, these basic established principles can be summarised in the following terms that the chain of events needs to be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person.

If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused.

17. Even in the case of a conviction where in an appeal the chain of evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded.

18. In other words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth and the only truth with regard to guilt of an accused for the charges framed against him or her, and such evidence should establish a chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused.”

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 16 of 30

18. While considering the evidence as has been led by the

prosecution, these principles need to be taken into

consideration to analyse whether the prosecution has

been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.

19. From the evidence before us, i.e the mahazar (Ex. P.2)

as prepared by the investigating officer (PW-16), it is

established that the deceased was staying in Door

no.369 and the house of the Complainant (PW-1) was

across the road i.e., Door no.362. The houses,

therefore, are near but not contiguous. According to

the post-mortem report dated 19.12.2016, the time

between the death and the post-mortem is between

12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. As the autopsy was

done at 02:05 p.m., so the death of the deceased

would be anywhere between 02:00 p.m. on

18.12.2016 to 02:00 a.m. on 19.12.2016. As per the

evidence of Complainant (PW-1) and her son (PW-2),

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 17 of 30 they had given food to the deceased at 09:00 p.m. on

18.12.2016 and after she took her food, they left by

closing the outer door. At 5:30 a.m. on 19.12.2016,

she was found dead when PW-2, his grandson, came

to open the door. So, the death would have taken

place between 09:00 p.m. and 02:00 a.m.

20. The evidence of Akash Saksena (PW-6) would indicate

that the Appellant alongwith Marcus had gone out of

the house to smoke at 02:00 a.m. So, the possibility

of the Appellant being there at the relevant time

cannot be ruled out, as the period within which the

death would have occurred as has been given by the

doctor in the post-mortem report is not far from what

has been said could be the time of death. According

to the testimony of Senthil Kumar (PW-5), the

Appellant was found going out of the compound

where the house was situated at around 02:45 a.m.

What is significant to note is that it was not said that

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 18 of 30 he was going out of the house of the deceased, but

that he was seen going out of the compound. Further,

Senthil Kumar’s testimony does not indicate that the

Appellant looked nervous or shaky, in contrast to the

testimony of Akash Saksena (PW-6), who stated so.

In light of the fact that it has not come on record that

the Appellant was in any manner involved in any

other offence anywhere, his calm and composed

response to the question put to him by Senthil

Kumar, a stranger, without getting perturbed and

that too right after having committed a gruesome

crime appears to be unnatural.

21. In this light, an aspect, which marks itself as a

contradiction and may cast doubt on the efficiency,

sincerity and fairness of the investigation is the non-

recording of the statement of Marcus, who is the

person, who had been with the Appellant and had

last seen him. Both of them came out of the house

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 19 of 30 to smoke after the party was over at 2:00 a.m. His

statement was not recorded nor was he associated

with the inquiry or the investigation. Strangely,

explanation of the prosecution in this regard is that

he was not a material witness. This creates a doubt

as he could be a suspect and in any case the person

who would have indicated as to how long he and the

Appellant were together, throwing some light as to

whether the Appellant had the opportunity or time to

go to the site of incident and/or commit such an

offence. This doubt is further fortified from the fact

that Marcus was a friend of Akash Saksena (PW-6)

and could have been visiting the place and so would

have known the area well. The possibility of he

knowing about the vicinity, and the residents of the

area and their social status etc. along with other

aspects, cannot be ruled out. Whereas, the Appellant

had come to the house of Akash Saksena only on

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 20 of 30 16.12.2016 which is just two (2) days prior to the date

of occurrence. The benefit of doubt with regard to this

has to be given to the accused.

22. Another aspect which needs to be highlighted herein

is that the statement of the Investigating Officer Gopi

(PW-16) mentions that at 4:00 a.m. on 22.12.2016

when the police party was on patrol, the Appellant,

who was identified by the informant, saw them and

jumped from the over-bridge of North Coimbatore,

injuring his left leg leading to he being taken to

hospital and then there his arrest. Nothing has come

on record, either in the form of any document or in

the statement of any of the witnesses including the

investigating officer with regard to the identity of the

informant. The said informant’s statement has also

not been recorded by the investigating officer nor has

he been produced as a witness. Moreover, the

evidence does not indicate that a sketch of the

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 21 of 30 suspect was prepared or any photograph was seized

which could be taken as a reference for trying to

search for the said suspect. The Complainant (PW-1)

and her son (PW-2) did not know the Appellant nor

have they met him ever so the question of them

identifying the Appellant does not arise. As a matter

of fact, no Test Identification Parade had been carried

out of the Appellant after his arrest.

23. In this light, the prosecution story regarding the

Appellant being found at the over-bridge of North

Coimbatore and arrested in the hospital becomes

doubtful. Rather, the stand of the Appellant with

regard to he having been taken into custody earlier

and tortured could be a possibility. The Appellant

could have been in the custody of police much prior

to being taken to the hospital, where according to the

prosecution, Raghavan (PW-8) was stopped outside

the hospital while he was going on a two-wheeler and

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 22 of 30 was asked to help the investigating officer (PW-16) in

communicating with the Appellant as he knew Hindi.

It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to this,

the Appellant confessed to the crime and produced

the two gold bangles from his pocket at the hospital.

It appears to be unreasonable that the Appellant

would be carrying the bangles with him at these odd

hours i.e. 4:00 a.m., and that too, two days after the

incident. Therefore, planting of the gold bangles

upon the Appellant cannot be ruled out, casting

serious doubt upon the alleged recovery.

24. The unfortunate incident had taken place where an

old lady of 85 years was not only robbed but was

raped and murdered brutally, but the question would

be as to whether the Appellant is the person who has

committed the offence. The medical evidence would

only point to the offence having been committed but

unfortunately prosecution has not been able to

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 23 of 30 connect the Appellant to the offence on the basis of

medical evidence except to the extent that the

Appellant was found to be potent and thus capable of

committing the said offence. But that would not

suffice nor would it connect or associate him to the

offence. No hair or skin sample has been collected

from the site which would connect the Appellant in

any manner with the place of the incident or the

offence. Merely because the medical evidence proves

the unfortunate loss of life would not be enough to

convict a person since he happened to be in the

vicinity. In the absence of any forensic evidence when

there is no eyewitness and the case is of

circumstantial evidence, benefit would go to the

accused.

25. As it is apparent from the statement of the

investigating officer (PW-16), a sniffer dog, a

fingerprint expert and a photographer had visited the

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 24 of 30 place of occurrence with him and that too in quick

succession, rather simultaneously on the visit of the

investigating officer at 07:30 a.m. on 19.12.2016.

Nothing has come on record which would indicate

any fingerprint of the Appellant having been found at

the place of occurrence. The sniffer dog has also not

been able to guide them to the house where the

Appellant was residing. It may not be out of the way

to mention here that the place where the Appellant

was staying with Akash Saksena (PW-6) was not far

off from the place of incident and that is one of the

reasons which has been taken by the prosecution as

a possible factor for the commission of the offence by

the Appellant.

26. The prosecution evidence raises doubts regarding the

involvement of the accused. In the judgement of this

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 25 of 30 Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh2,

it has been held that in cases wherein the guilt of the

accused is sought to be established by circumstantial

evidence, if two views are possible on the evidence

adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the

accused and the other to his innocence, the view

which is favourable to the accused should be

adopted.

27. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to

connect the Appellant to the offence through medical

or forensic evidence as no blood, hair or skin sample,

or fingerprint belonging to him has been found on the

body of the deceased, the recovered articles, or at the

place of occurrence.

28. The testimony of Senthil Kumar (PW-5) has also failed

to link the Appellant to the place of occurrence as it

2 (1973) 2 SCC 808

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 26 of 30 has only established his proximity to the place, with

him merely been seen coming out of the compound,

and not specifically out of the house of the deceased.

29. Further, the factum of finding the Appellant on the

over-bridge of North Coimbatore at 4 am on

22.12.2016 is doubtful due to the undisclosed

identity of the informant, creating uncertainty as to

how the police identified the Appellant when none of

the police officials had any occasion to see him.

Consequently, doubt is also cast upon the cause of

the injury on his left leg, with the Appellant denying

the incident at the bridge and claiming that he was

tortured in police custody. In this light, the

subsequent recovery of the two gold bangles from the

pocket of the Appellant also becomes doubtful.

30. Another aspect which casts a serious doubt upon the

investigation is the non-association and non-

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 27 of 30 examination of Marcus, who had accompanied the

Appellant for a smoke at 2:00 a.m. from the house of

Akash Saksena and therefore, was the only person

with whom the Appellant had last gone out of the

house. The Appellant returned alone to the house

and therefore left from there. It is rather strange for

the prosecution to claim that Marcus was not a

material witness, when it is the case of the

prosecution that the offence had been committed

between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.; this creates a

strong possibility of false implication.

31. All the above aspects when seen in the context of the

case being dealt with by us, a case of circumstantial

evidence, it would be difficult to bring it within the

parameters set out in various judgments of this Court

as mentioned in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer

case (supra).

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 28 of 30

32. The prosecution has failed to bring forth reliable

evidence forming a complete string of events, leading

to the guilt of the Appellant. The chain of events

being sought to be projected is laden with deficiencies

creating significant gaps, leading to other possible

hypotheses as aforementioned. Due to such missing

links, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. The

benefit of the doubt with regard to this must flow to

the accused. In this light, the guilt of the accused has

not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the

impugned judgments are, thus, liable to be set aside.

33. The present appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras dated 28.10.2021 and the judgment dated

17.11.2017 passed by the Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Case,

Coimbatore, convicting and sentencing the Appellant

under Sections 302, 449, 376 and 394 of the Indian

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 29 of 30 Penal Code are thereby set aside. The Appellant

Mohamed Sameer Khan is acquitted of the charges

and is ordered to be released forthwith from Central

Prison Kovai, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, if not required

in any other case.

34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.……..………..……………………..J. [ DIPANKAR DATTA ]

.……..………..……………………..J. [ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 29, 2025.

Criminal Appeal No.2069/2024 Page 30 of 30