Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

State of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State Andhra Pradesh (through lnspector of Police, Jannaram, Adilabad District) .Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Smt. P. Sujatha (Legal Aid) Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor BAIL SLIP: The AppellanU Accused No.1 was directed to be relr:ased on bail by the order of the High Court dated 20-11-2023 in l-A.No.1 ot 2O2i in Crl.A.No.893 of 201A BAIL SLIP: The AppellanU Accused No.2 was directed to be relr;ased on bail by the order of the High Court dated 26-12-2022 in l.A.No.1 of 2O2i in Crt.A.No.8g3 of 2018. Criminal Aooeal No 893 of 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by t re Judgment dated 22-11-2017 passed in S.C.No.206 of 2012 on the file of the Couri of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Mancherial. Between: 1 Raya Arjun, S/o Yellaiah, aged 30 years, Caste: Nayakapr>d, Occ: Coolie R/o. Nayakapuguda, H/o.lndenpalli Village of Jannaiam l,4andal, tr,4ancherial District.

2. Raya Raju, S/o Yellaiah, aged 25 years, Caste: Nayakapod, Occ: Coolie R/o. Nayakapuguda, H/o.lndenpalli Village of Jannaram \ilandal, Ir,4anherial District. ...APPELLANT S/AI;CUSED (Al & A2) AND 9tate of Telangana, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. K.V. Subba Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 'ra*-":' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.l3o and 893 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri lustice K.Surender) Criminal Appea-l No.130 of 2018 is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.l and 2, aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 22.1I-2017 in S.C.No.206 of 2OL2, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad, FAC iI Additional District and Sessions Judge (mC), Mancheria, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. Again, Criminal Appeal No.893 of 2018 is frled questioning the very same Judgment by the same appellants. Both the appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State.

3. A complaint was Iiled ,,vith the Sub-Inspector of Police on O7.O2.2O|L by Rampur Chinna Rajam (died during trial), alleging that his father, namely Rampur Rajam (hereinafter 2 referred to as 'the deceased'), became hysteric on seeing God Bheemaanna, due to which the villagers suspe:ted that the deceased was practicing black magic/ sorcery. Prior to the incident, accused No. 1 and his family beat t he deceased, suspecting that the son of accused No. t had fallt n sick due to the sorcery practiced by the deceased. Thereafter a panchayat was held before the elders requesting accused No.1 not to beat the deceased. Later, the daughter of accused No.2 died due to i1l-health. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 believed that the death of the daughter of accused No.2 was on account ,rf the sorcery practiced by the deceased. On the next day mo'ning. i.e., on

07.O2.2011 at O7.00 A.M., while the deceased was at his house, both accused Nos.l and 2 went to the house of the deceased, dragged him out of the house, and assaulted hirn with sticks. He was indiscriminately beaten by the appellants due to which the deceased fell down ald died.

4. The de facto cornplatnant went to the poli< e station and lodged the complaint/Ex.P. 17 on 07.O2.2O11 et 10.30 A.M. PW. 10, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, received the complaint, and immediately, he u/ent to the sce'ne of offence, along with the other police personnel, observed the scene of 3 offence, and drafted the scene of offence panchanama. He also conducted the inquest proceedings at the scene of offence and seized one blood-stained stick and one boulder, which were allegedly used for beating the deceased. MOs.3 to 6 are broken sticks. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy.

5. The Doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, was not examined and the post-mortem report/ Ex.P. 16 was marked through PW. 12 (Junior Assistant) from the Primary Health Centre, Thallapet. Eye-witnesses account of PWs.l, 2, and 4 formed basis on which the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction ofboth the appeilants.

6. Learned counsel appea,ring for the appellants has submitted that other than the evidence of interested witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 2, arrd 4, no other witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer. Since there is no independent witness to corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses, i.e., PWs.1, 2, ald 4, the evidence of the witnesses has to be looked into, and their evidence cannot be relied upon once their evidence is disbelieved. There is no other evidence to corroborate with the 4 version of the prosecution that it was the rppellants who assaulted the deceased and committed the murrter.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional RLblic Prosecutor would submit that at the time when the -incirlent happened, PWs. 1 and 2 were present, and their nar nes were also mentioned in the complatnt/Ex.P.77. There is no reason why these eye-witnesses should not be believed.

8. Having gone through the record, the cor rplaint/Ex.p.I7 was frled by the son of the deceased. Ac,:ording to the complaint, the villagers suspected that the deceased was practicing sorcery/black magic. It is admitted b5 the de facto complainant in the complaint that the deceased rsed to become hysteric at times. The reason given in the complaint is that one year prior to the incident, the son of accused No 1 became sick, and accused No.l along with other villagers st spected that it was the deceased who had performed sorcery on the four-years- old son of accused No. 1 . One day prior to th: incident, the three-year-old daughter of accused No.2 died. Accused Nos.1 and 2 suspected that, this time also, it was thi deceased who practiced sorcery and was responsible for thr: death of the three-year-old child. Entertaining the belief thzr.t the death of 5 three-year-old daughter of accused No.2 was because of the deceased's sorcery, they went to the house of the deceased and attacked him.

9. The names of pWs.1 and, 2 were. mentioned in the complaint/Ex.P. 17 and they witnessed the incident. It is natural that they were present when the incident happened, which was at O6.OO A.M. in the morning. The complaint was lodged within four hours of the incident. For the reason that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. Once their erridence is found to be convincing, and there was nothing elicited during the course of cross-examination of the eye-witnesses to disbelieve their evidence that the incident occurred, their testimony holds weight. All the witnesses admitted that a panchayat was held wherein there was suspicion against the deceased that he was practicing sorcery.

10. The background of the case is also to be considered by the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. The four-year_old son of accused No.l had suffered an illness, and at that time, they believed it was on account of the deceased,s sorcery. Again, one day prior to the incident, the three_year_old daughter of l I I I I i I : 6 accused No.2 died, and the appellants strongly believed that her death was caused due to sorcery practiced by the deceased. In the trauma of the death of the three-year o1<L daughter of accused No.2, both the appellants went to the house of the deceased, dragged him out, and attacked him. 1 1 . The witnesses narrated that both the a1,pe11ants had beaten the deceased with sticks, and accused No.2 also used a boulder. However, the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination was not examined by the prosecr,rti,tn. The post- mortem Doctor would not fa1l within the definitior r of an expert as mentioned in Section 293 of Cr.P.C. 12 . Non-examination of the post-mortem Doct cr prejudiced the case of the appellants, as the appellants we:l e deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the Doctor, w:ro conducted post-mortem, to elicit details regarding the vis,.ibility of the injuries that were received and the cause of the cieath. Though it cannot be disputed that the death of the ,:leceased was homicidal, however, the acts of the appella ets and the identification of visible injuries would form the brlsis to assess whether there was any premeditation on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased. 1

13. In the background of the death of the three_year_old daughter of accused No.2, the appellants lost self_control and strongly believed that it was the deceased who was responsible for the death of the daughter of accused No.2. In such a state of mind, they went to his house and attacked him in his house. It cannot be said that there was a clear intent on the part of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. They were under the mistake and unverified belief that the death of the three_ year-old child was on account of the deceased,s actions. In such state of mind and having lost their self-control, they went to the premises of the deceased and attacked him.

14. In the said circumstalces, the benefrt of Exceptio n 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C is extended to the appellants. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 of IpC to Section 304_II of IpC, and the appellants are sentenced to undergo seven (7) years of rigorous imprisonment. 1 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeai is partly allowed, converting the conviction of the appellants from Section 3O2 of IPC to Section 304-II of IpC. The rest of the impugned E .l Judgment holds good. The trial Court is directed to cause the appearance of the appellants / accused Nos.l ancl 2, and send them to the prison for serving the remai nder of the imprisonment. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any. shal1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO GISTRAR \ f'*'*' ' '{..l'o* To, 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 OFFICER The lll Additional District and Sessions JudgJy z t Asifabad, FAC il Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ir/inch,::riat. (with records, if any) The Judicial First Class tvlagistrate, Luxettipet. The Superintendent, Central prison, Warangal. The Station House Officer, Jannaram police Station, Jar naram. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the l)tate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 9nu 99 to Smt P. Sujatha, Advocate-cum- Legat Aid [C rUT] One CC to Mr. K.V. Subba Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies - kam/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.130 and 893 of 2018 fl;;;:;\* J 13 JUN 206 / c\ <\' PARTLY ALLOWING CRIMINAL APPEALS ."fl" W#