Shaik Shabuddin vs State Of Telangana

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6850 of 2024)

Shaik Shabuddin …Appellant Versus

State of Telangana …Respondent

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the Special Leave Petition, notice was issued

limited to the quantum of sentence. Despite that we

perused the judgment to satisfy ourselves regarding the

conviction. We have very serious reservation about the

conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 19891 and also on

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Date: 2025.12.17 1 17:11:12 IST Reason:

‘the SC/ST Act’

Page 1 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 certain circumstances found by the Division Bench of the

High Court to convict the accused, which we are duty-

bound to notice since while confirming the conviction for

rape and murder we may not be understood as having

approved the said reasoning of the High Court, whose

order merges with our order.

3. Briefly stated, on 24.11.2019, the deceased, wife of

PW-1 who had been dropped at Yellapatar Village, by

PW1, to pursue their vocation of hawking utensils, was

found missing and the calls to her mobile were not

answered. A complaint was lodged with the police who

along with PW1 and his relatives, searched for the missing

person. Eventually her dead body was found on the next

day, first detected by PW3, within the bushes on the right

side of the road leading to Yellapatar Village. PW1 rushed

to the spot, identified the body and immediately intimated

the police upon which an inquest was carried out and the

criminal law put in motion. Based on Ex. P2 complaint of

Page 2 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 PW1, PW24 altered the provisions of law to Sections 376D

and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

18602 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

4. Trial was conducted and A1 to A3 were convicted &

sentenced for offences under Sections 302 & 376D read

with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST

Act with death and life imprisonment respectively and fine

of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and Rs.2,000/-

(Rupees two thousand) with default sentences respectively

of simple imprisonment (S.I.) for three and two months.

Further, under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act, a sentence

of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 3 years and a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) with default sentence of

S.I. for 1 month was imposed on all the accused. A2 and A3

were further convicted under Section 404 read with Section

34 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and to pay

fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default sentence of S.I. for 1

month.

2 for short, ‘the ‘IPC’

Page 3 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024

5. Prosecution allegation was that A1 to A3 followed the

deceased while she was proceeding to the village, and in

an isolated area, pulled her towards the bushes and

committed rape on her one by one, despite vehement

protests made by her. To ensure that the accused are not

implicated after the commission of rape, A1 slit her throat

while A2 and A3 held her hands and legs to render her

immobile. It was also alleged that A2 stole a mobile from

the woman and A3 took Rs.200/- which was found in his

possession.

6. The trial court had relied on various circumstances,

one of which was the ‘last seen together’ theory, based

only on the deposition of PW4 and PW5 that they saw the

woman and A1 to A3 proceeding in the same direction

towards Yellapatar Village. The High Court also found that

the circumstance of no explanation having been offered,

after being seen together, provides an additional link in

the chain of circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian

Page 4 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 Evidence Act, 18723. We cannot but notice that there is no

acquaintance proved between the accused and the

deceased and there cannot be any ‘last seen together

theory’ propounded as a circumstance in the above case,

though it has to be accepted that the accused and the

deceased were found in the same vicinity just prior to the

time of the crime.

7. Further, the High Court relied upon the confession

made by the accused to one PW15 who was called to the

police station as a witness. It was the prosecution version

that PW25, the DSP Asifabad, the Investigating Officer,

secured the presence of PW15 and one Md. Yunus as

panch witnesses and the confession was made to them.

There can be no reliance placed on such a confession at

the behest of the police and the finding of the High Court

that it could be relied on cannot at all be countenanced for

the reason also that it was made while in police custody.

The next aspect on which we have serious reservation is

3 for short, ‘the ‘Evidence Act’

Page 5 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 with respect to the recovery made of MO1/mobile,

MO11/knife and MO21/cash as purportedly admissible

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even as per the

prosecution story, the same were handed over along with

the confession, to PW15, which material objects were said

to be in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest.

MOs 12 to 20/clothes were projected as seized under

Section 27 which were worn by the accused at the time of

arrest.

8. There was no concealment as such and in any event,

on an arrest, when the material objects could have been

seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by

the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under

Section 27 cannot at all accepted. It goes against the very

principle of Section 27, insofar as the disclosure relied

upon can only relate to the concealment and the recovery

of material objects on such disclosure made, which

recovery has to be made in the persons of witnesses. We

Page 6 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 find absolutely no reason to accept the circumstances as

hereinabove stated, relied on by the High Court, to convict

the accused.

9. Having said that, we notice the fact that the accused

were in the vicinity in which the deceased was also present

just prior to her rape and murder; clearly established by

the prosecution. PW5 while he was crossing Yellapatar

Village on his motorcycle at about 9:00 am saw the accused

going to Ramnaik Thanda and noticed that the deceased

was also proceeding in the same direction with a bag full of

utensils on her head. PW4 who was working in the adjacent

field on the fateful day, at about 10:30 am, heard the

shrieks of a lady and went in search, but failed to find

anybody. He also deposed of having seen the accused at

the same time proceeding from Ramnaik Thanda, the

specific location in which the dead body was detected, to

Yellapatar Village. He spoke of PW1, the husband of the

deceased having come in search of her in the evening and

Page 7 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 confirmed that the shrieks he heard came from the location

in which the body was eventually found. PW6 on the very

same day, at about 11:30 am, spoke of the accused having

come to his kirana shop and sat on a bench. A2 took water

from a pot and drank it, and PW6 observed blood stains on

the clothes of all the accused. PW8 deposed that the

accused, residents of the village were missing from the

village after the incident took place.

10. The medical evidence clearly indicated a homicide,

and it noticed 14 ante-mortem external injuries, which also

conclusively proved that the victim was raped. The

approximate time of death indicated in the preliminary

postmortem report produced as Ex. P18 tallied with the

time the witnesses saw the accused and the deceased and

when PW4 heard the shrieks of a woman. The time

indicated of the death, as noticed in Ex. P18, preliminary

postmortem examination report, was 24 to 28 hours prior,

which placed the murder exactly at the time when the

Page 8 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 above-mentioned witnesses saw the accused and the

deceased, then alive, in the vicinity of Ramnaik Thanda.

11. PW18, the doctor who conducted postmortem, also

deposed that the vaginal smear and swab of semen and

spermatozoa and DNA profile from the dead body was

handed over to the police for onboard transmission to the

Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis.

Blood samples were also obtained from the accused, and

they were also sent for DNA test and serology report as

deposed by PW21 who collected the blood samples. PW21

also spoke of the Autosomal SRT analysis having indicated

that the seminal stains on the saree of the victim matched

with the DNA profiles of A1 and A2 and they are of the

same biological origin.

12. The medical evidence regarding the homicidal death

and the rape committed on the victim, the time of death as

stated in the postmortem report, the accused having been

found in the same vicinity as the victim and the failure of

Page 9 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 the accused to establish the alibi as spoken of under

Section 313 questioning, would provide a complete chain

of circumstances to convict the accused under Sections 302

& 376D read with Section 34 of the IPC.

13. However, we are not convinced that any offence is

made out or that there could be any conviction entered

under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Though the

prosecution has proved the caste of the victim/deceased,

there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste

of the victim or even that they were in any manner

acquainted with the victim, to be aware of her caste status.

The offence hence cannot be said to have been committed

with the knowledge of the caste status of the victim; which

is an essential ingredient under both the provisions

charged under the SC/ST Act.

14. Further, the conviction under Section 404 against A2

cannot also be sustained since, as we found, there can be

no circumstance of Section 27 recovery accepted as an

Page 10 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 incriminating circumstance, on the alleged recovery of the

mobile by PW15, as handed over to him by A2. Yet again,

though, the mobile number has been proved to be that of

PW11 as per the evidence of PW22, there is nothing to

indicate that the mobile handset was the one in which the

SIM card was used. The prosecution has not produced any

SIM card, and their case is that while the mobile was

appropriated from the possession of the deceased victim,

the SIM card was thrown away. Neither was the SIM card

traced out nor is the ownership of the mobile established

which persuades us to acquit A2 under Section 404 read

with Section 34 of the IPC. So would A2 be acquitted of the

offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST Act.

15. Now, we come to the sentencing, which the High

Court has modified from death sentence as awarded by the

trial court to imprisonment of life, under Section 302, with a

Page 11 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 rider that the accused shall remain in custody till the last

breath, without remission.

16. We are in this case concerned only with A2 and we

have considered the mitigating circumstances with respect

to A2, as found by the High Court. A2 was aged 40 years at

the time of commission of the offence, and he is said to

have a family consisting of his wife, four children and aged

parents. He was the only earning member of the family. A2

did not have any past criminal record, nor can it be said, as

has been found by the High Court, that he poses a grave

danger to the society at large, which requires his life to be

extinguished. It was also found by the High Court, rightly

so, that the subject case is not one which can be

categorized as the rarest of the rare requiring death to be

handed down. The trial court has further noticed that

despite A2 being in custody, there is no report from the jail

authorities about his adverse conduct or that he is beyond

reformation. Even before us, the State Counsel does not

Page 12 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 argue on any such adverse conduct while in prison or that

the person is beyond reformation. Despite the aforesaid

circumstances, the Division Bench proceeded to impose a

sentence of life imprisonment, till the remainder of his life.

We are convinced that the case is one in which

imprisonment of life till the remainder of A2’s life can be

modified to one extending to 25 years without remission.

The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the IPC is thus modified and that under 376D read with

Section 34 of the IPC is affirmed, which sentences shall be

concurrently suffered.

17. The appeal stands partly allowed.

18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

19. Before leaving the matter, we notice that all together

there were three accused in the case, all of whom were

convicted and sentenced, identically. There is no appeal

filed by the other two accused. We direct the Registry of

this Court to forward a copy of this Judgment to the

Page 13 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024 Member Secretary, Telangana Legal Services Authority,

who shall through the concerned District Legal Services

Authority provide legal assistance to the other accused to

file an appeal to this Court through the Supreme Court

Legal Services Committee.

….…..….…..……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

…..………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI December 17, 2025.

Page 14 of 14 Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024