The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent / Complainant Counsel for the Appellant in Crl.A.No.327 ot 2O18 Counsel for the Appellant in Crl.A.No.323 of 2018 Counsel for the Respondent in Both the Cases Sri H Prahalada Reddy Sri V V S Satyanarayana Reddy Senior Counsel Mrs S Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Common Judgment : = THE HOIT'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.\/EI{UCIOPAL CRIMII{AL APPEAL Nos.323 of 2O18 and327 of2O18 COMMON JUDGMENT: Challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused as per judgment dated 04.O1.2018 in SC No.266 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, accused No.4 preferred criminal appeal No.323 of 2O18 and accused Nos. 1 and 3 preferred criminal appeal No.327 of 2018 under Section 374(21 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri H.Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.No.327 of 2078, Sri WS Sa[ranarayana Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.323 of 2018 and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the

2.d respondent/ State in both the matters.

3. Since both these criminal appeals are germinated from the same sessions case i.e. SC No.266 of 2015, this Court disposes these two matters by way of this common judgment.

4. The facts that lead to the present litigation, concisely, are that basing on the complaint dated 23.05.2014 lodged by the de-facto complainant/PWl the police of Gandhi Nagar registered crime in FIR No.2O8 of 2014, for the offence under Section 3O7 read with Section Page 2 of 1l 34 IPC and investigated into the matter' Aftt:r investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against completion of the accused alleging that irr view of a quarrel on a Petty lssue occurred on 08.30 P.M., at Naivedhyam Hotel' Chilakalaguda' 22.05.2O14 al Hydcrabad amrng Martin Davit/ friend of de-facto complainant' his friends and brother of accused No' 1 viz' Clinton and A3' all the accused perso s hatched a plan to beat anyone froro the team of said Martin David ilnd in furtherance of the same' on l-he same day at 10.30 P.M., u'lrilc the de-facto complainant alone was going to take his sister's dzLughter from his aunt's house on his Scoo'ty bike bearing No.AP 1O AV 2652, the accused followed him on the Karizma bike of accusr:d No 4 and when he reached neal Bhoiguda petrol bunktheaccusedNos.]to4stoppedhim,pulledhimfromhisbike and beat him r.vi th hands and legs in a drunken :r>ndition' tried to kill him ancl trroke one beer bottle on his head and forehead due to which, he sustained head contusion injuries on f:rehead and right cheek and fled awaY from the spot'

5. Upon tz;king cognizance of the offences charged against the accused, the said charge-sheet was numbered as SC No 266 of 2015' In order to s rbstantiate his case, the de-facto r:omplainant apart from examinit'rg himself as PW1 also examined PWs'2 to 9 and relied under Exs.Pl to P16 and material upon the do( uments marked object i.e. broken beer bottle' The accused den.ed the allegations Pagc 3 of l1 mainly contending that they were implicated in the case in view of previous enmity and that since PWI drove the bike in intoxicated condition and caused accident due to which, the neighbours assaulted him and caused injuries. No oral or documentary evidence is. adduced on behalf of the accused.

6. Upon hearing both sides and evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court found the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 grilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC instead of Section 3O7 read with Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period o[ two years and to pay a hne of Rs.S,OOO/- each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and ordered to pay the hne amount to PW I /injured towards compensation. The trial Court acquitted accused No.2 holding that though PWs. I and 3 referred his name, the recitals of either Ex.PI2 FIR or'Ex.Pl statement of PWI do not reflect his presence at the spot, which raises a suspicion regarding participation of accused No.2 in the scene. 7 . Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 preferred Crl.A.No.327 of 20 18 and accused No.4 preferred Crl.A.No.323 of 2018 mainly contending that the hndings of trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of Page 4 of ll ' case, the trial Court' though no motive or overt acts are proved against the ac''used and in-spite of many inconsistencies in the evidence of pr'rsecution witnesses' has erroneous'Iy convicted the accused. Fur her, in-spite of non-co-operation of PWs 5 ar-.d 7 panchas for cr'nfession of accused' the learned Judge of the trial courtconvictclthcappellantsbyheavilyplacinS;relianceonthe evidence of PWs.l and 3. Evidence of PW5' who alleged to be witnessed seiz rre o[ material objects/ pieces of br.ken beer bottle proves that P\[9/the lO had examined only the friends and relatives of de-facto conplainant and he failed to exarnine the persops' who were present i t the scene of offence' The trial Court failed to take into considera' ion the admission of PW4 that the ioctor who treated PW1 /injured li:ft thcir organization and went to abroad and hence' he rvas authorized to depose in the matter and that if a person fallen from the movl-lg two wheeler in a drunken condition' he might have sustained the same type of injuries and hence' l-he defence of the accused that t)W I fallen from the bike while he was coming in a rash manner in iln rntoxicated condition cannot be rejected' The appellants sr'r bmit ted that the appellants cannot be convicted in terms of Section 326 read' with Section 34 IPC' To substantiate their contentions, Iearned counsel for the appeilants relied upon the decisions renCereil in State of Orissa Vs' Kanhu Mohapatra and anotherlandBaulandanotherVs.TheStateofUttarPradesh2. ' loo5 c,t.LJ ji6 t Page 5 of l1

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant h]blic Prosecutor, representing the State/respondent vehemently opposed the present criminal appeals mainly contending that after meticulously scrutinizing the entire material available on record, the trial Court had rightly found the appellants guilty while acquitting ,6t2 and hence, the said findings cannot be stated to be perverse and in that view of the matter, the same cannot warrant interference of this Court.

9. Upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material available on record including the impugned judgment, this Court sits to evaluate the same on the basis of grounds urged through these criminal appeals.

10. Challenge in these appeals is to the impugned judgment, holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. 1 1 . Evidence of PW I is nothing but reiteration of averments of his complaint lodged to the police alleging that he was beaten by the accused on the fateful day at the scene of offence with an intention to kill him keeping in view the previous quarrel among two groups. He also deposed that due to the said incident he sustained injuries and - - hence, the4asse rs took him to Gandhi Hospital and upon obtaining 'AIR t96E Suprcme Court 728 Page 6 of 1l the phone number of his sister PW2, somebody called PW2 to the hospital, who shiftcd him to Apollo Hospital, Secun<lerabad for better treatment. He also cleposed that subsequently poiice came and recorded his statement. During the course of cross'examination, PW1 denied the suggestion put by learned counsel for the accused that due to his inl.oxicated condition the accident occurred resulting in injuries.

12. PW2, sis,ter of PW1, deposed that on 22.05.21)14 she received a phone call frorn sorne unknown person informing thzrt PWl sustained injuries due to assault of the accused and he was admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad accordingly, she went the"e and shifted her brother to Apollo Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment

13. PW3 is an independent witness and deposed that at the time of incident he along with his friend Akshay were at er pan shop near Navdyam Hote., at about 08.OO p.m., they had a qtLarrel with A3 and A4 and with one Clinton and after the said quarre) they dispersed. Subsequently ilt about 08.30 p.m., he saw near tl-rr: petrol bunk at Bhoiguda accused Nos.1 to 4 beating de-facto complzrinant/PWl with hands and [eg.s and also with beer bottle due to which PW 1 fell unconscious aud was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. He further deposed that in view of ,:arlir:r quarrel, PWl was attacked by the accused.,_ PageTolll

14. PW4 Dr.Avinash, basing on Ex.P3 injury certificate, deposed that one Dr.Jahanavi Panchal treated PWI and subsequently she went to abroad and hence, by virtue of Ex.P2 authorization he is deposing and that PW1 sustained mild closed head injury, multiple facial injuries and right black eye injury and opined that the same injuries can be caused to a person who droves the vehicle in intoxicated condition and falls down from the vehicle. During cross- examination he admitted that he did not give treatrnent to PW1.

15. PWS is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama/ Ex. P4 for collecting the broken beer bottle/Mdt f.o- the scene of offence. PWs.6 and 7 are also the panch witnesses for confession of the accused. However, they turned hoslile. But they admitted their signatures Exs.P6 to Pl1 on the confessional statements of A 1 to ,{3. PW8 is the constable and recorded the statement of PW 1 in Gandhi Hospital under Ex.Pl . PW9 is the investigating officer and registered FIR/Ex.Pl2.

16. While evaluating the above oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, especially PWs. 1 to 3 it is clearly established that on the fateful date of incident at the scene of offence, accused have assaulted PW1 and beat him due to which, PWl became unconscious and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad from there PW2/sister of PWI shifted him to Apollo Hospital, Secunderabad t Page8ofIl where he wr. s given treatment for his head and other injuries by Dr.Jahanavi Panchal. However, PW1 did not mertion any thing with regard to the previous quarrel. Subsequently, the investigating offrcer with the help of PWs.5 [o 7 could collect the material objects and record cr:nfessional statements of accused. 17 . Admitt( dly, hitting PW I with beer bottle cznrsing severe head injury cannot be an ingredient to attract the offe.nce under Section 3O7 IPC since to attract the said Section the act done by the accused must be capable of causing death and there must be an intention to cause death of a person. When the eviden<:e on record is scrupulously ;crutinized, the edifice laid down by the prosecution to gain support o their allegations against the accuscd with regard to Section 3O7 IPC is very week and without having any substantial support. Thr: contention raised by the learnecl counsel for the appellants is l.hat it is a case of sudden hght with no intention of the appellants to cause any injury to PW I . The injr,rries are also not serious which could cause death. There is no meteLl weapon as such used. The allegation is only broken beer bottle was; used and found. In such scena:io, the trial Court has rightly found the accused not guiity for thc said offence and instead it found Accused Nos. l, 3 and a guilty for th e offence under Section 326 read u.ir:h Section 34 of IPC. Section :;26 IPC deals with offence of voluntztrily causing hurt by dangerous e./eapons or means- --) r',.''' Page9ofll

18. Further, with the aforesaid evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our view, the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. from the reasons for fight, as are emerging on record, it doesn,t seem to be pre-planned act. It, at the most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326 IPC as a beer bottle was used as a weapon. The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view tl're conviction of the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained however ttre offence under Section 326 IPC is made out.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to whittle down the prosecution case relying upon the discrepancies/inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence with regard to the silence of pWl regarding the quarrel/ incident occurred on the earlier day to the present scene, non-availabilit5r/examination of the doctor, who treated pW 1, different times deposed by PWs.l and 3 with regard to the incident, place of incident, admission of PW4 doctor that the same set of injuries can be caused if a person fall from two wheel while he was riding the same in a rash and negligent manner and in an intoxicated condition and also the non-co-operation of pWs.S to 7 to the case of prosecution. However, in view of the fact that pWs.S to 7 did not deny their signatures on Exs.P4 to pl1 alrd on material object/MO_1, -the distancetetween the discrepant places deposed by prosecution Page l0 of I I witnesses is very short, non-exarnination of any witness to establish the contentior-L of learned counsel for the appellants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of PWl and identification rrf signature of the doctor who treatec[ PW I by PW4 and corroboration gained to his evidence from the contents of Ex.P3/injury ,--ertihcate the said contentions of learned counsel for the appellantsi cannot be countenanced and the'l cannot come to rescue the apl)ellants from their liability. In that 'ziew of the matter, it can be safelv held that the findings of the trial Court hnding the appeliants guirty. as stated supra, cannot be found fault with.and the prosecution could able to bring home their guilt and on the other hand, the accrrsed/ appellants failed to rebut the szrme. Accordingly, this Court seesi no reason to interfere with the said irndings. 20 . As per t he submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants while adjudicating IA No. 1 of 2018 in both these criminal appeals, it canre to light that the appellants were on bail throughout the trial before the trial Court and upon pronouncement of the impugned judgment, they were enlarged on bail unrler Section 389(3) Cr.P-C., ard as per orders of this Court dated O2.O2.2O 18 in IA No. 1 of 2O 18 in botl-r these appeals, the operation of impugned judgment was suspended and the appellants were enlarged on bail. Page ll of I I 2t. So far as the sentence is concerned, the offence took place on 22.05.2014, and since then almost 10 years have passed' During this period, the accused/appellants might have faced mental agony in roaming around the Courts and also suffered physical incarceration and hence, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view in their favour by reducing the period of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC i.e. rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years is reduced to that of the period which they have' already undergone while upholding the hne amount' 22: Except the above modihcation in respect of the period of imprisonment, the present criminal appeals are dismissed on all other aspects.

23. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications if any pending shall also stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY/' sd/- B. SATYAVATHI TY REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, -{ ^S]s (POA) Actcum-Vl The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under Sps Additi6nar Metroporitan ,..J.x.i,ii"sl.*d6cunaeraoao (with rebords, if any) TheXAdditionalchieftvletropolitanMagistrateSecunderabad The Station House Officer' Gandhi Nagar PS' Secunderabad TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri H Prahalada Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri V V S Satyanarayana Reddy' Senior Counsel IOPUC] 1

2. 2 4 E b 7 Two CD Copies d 4 HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 COMMON JUDGMENT GRLA.Nos.323 & 327 ot 2018 a ,t ,-i J a( )'+ *. 9 a f 1,TPfrM t.n I St ntA DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS .,o'd4 ' \i,- -6A-l