The High Court · 2025

Sri D Bhaskar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : I I i I Y 1 THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.634 of 2Ol2 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.2 aggrieved by the conviction in judgment dated 19.06.2012 tn S.C. No.31 of 2O72 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad, for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code (for short 1.P.C.').

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. Perused the record.

3. Initially, accused Nos.l to 6 were charge-sheeted under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The learned trial Judge found accused No. I guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and accused No.2/appellant herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-ll of I.P.C. Accused Nos.3 to 6 were acquitted by the trial Court since there was no identification. 2

4. The facts of the case in brief are that PWs.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident which happened on 09.01.2011 at about 1.00 p.m. According to PW. 1, who lodged Telugu written complaint Ex.P1, on 08.01.201 t his father-in-law died. Since his father-in-law was not having any sons, sister- in-law of PW.l namely Bhagzasree, walted to perform the funeral. Accused No. 1 and one Krishna, who is the younger brother of the deceased, raised an objection to the funeral being performed by a woman. Accused No.1 abused the wife of PW.1 i.e., PW.3 and also the sister of PW.3. There was a quarrel in between them. Meanwhile elders interfered and pacified the matter. On the same day at around 1.30 p.m., while PW. 1, deceased, along with others were at the tea stal1, accused Nos. 1 to 6 went there and attacked them. According to PWs.1 to 3, accused No.2 beat the deceased with hands all over his body and deceased fell on the ground. PW.2 stated that appellant slapped on the cheek of the deceased. PW.3 stated similar to what PWs.1 and 2 stated regarding accused No.2. 3

5. In the complaint filed by PW.1, he stated that accused No. 1 and some of his friends went to tea sta_ll and assaulted the deceased. The deceased was hit indiscriminately in stomach and all other parts of the body. On account of beating by accused No. 1 and several others, the deceased fell down. The deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared as dead.

6. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Jaya Kottur (not examined), who found the following injuries:

1. Nasal bleeding from right and left nostrils

2. lntra cerebral bleeding

3. Bleeding and clots present right temporal region after lifting the scalp and

4. Fracture of right temporal parietal bone.

7. Accordrng to Dr.Jaya Kottur, the cause of death of the deceased was due to severe head injury. PW. 11, deposed on behalf of Dr.Jaya Kottur. He stated that as per the pME report, injuries were not found on abdomen and on the sides of ribs. 4

8. Admittedly, the appellant/accused No.2 was stranger to all the witnesses. In the complaint filed by PW.l,-it was not stated regarding any particular person or the appellant, as the person who assaulted the deceased. The incident happened on 08.01.2011 and PWs.1 to 3 were examined on Ol.OS.20l2 i.e. nearly after one year and four months from the date of incident. The only reason for convicting the appellant/accused No.2 is because witnesses PWs.1 to 3 stated that it was appellant/accused No.2 who hit the 'all over the body. As already stated, it was not specilied in the complaint that one person amongst other deceased persons beat the deceased. But it was specilically stated that all of them had assaulted the deceased. The specifrc details of the appellant/accused No.2 were not stated in the complaint, nor mentioned at the earliest point of time that one amongst the group had assaulted the deceased. There was no test identilication parade conducted. The identity of the appetlant is doubtful since it was for the first time after more than one year. The witnesses attributed overt-acts to the appellant/accused No.2 only. The said identihcation by the witnesses after one year for the first time in the Court after 5 the incident happened, where there were several strangers apart from the appellant, evidence by the witnesses become doubtful. In fact the witnesses admitted that they have not specifically stated against the appellant/accused No.2 at the earliest point of time. 9 . In the present facts and circumstances of the case, benelit of doubt is extended to the appellant/accused No.2.

10. The Criminal Appeal 1S allowed, setting aside the conviction- imposed against the appellant/accused No.2 vide judgment dated 19.06.2012 passed in S.C.No.31 of 2012 by the trial Court. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' Sd/- K. I;RINIVASA RAO I\T REGISTRAR /\ \--....-_ E:TION OFFICER To, \ l.TheSessionsJudge,NizamabadDivision,Nizamabad(withrecords,ifany) 2. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Nizamabad 3. The Station House Officer, Nizamabad Town PS, Nizamabad District 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] \

5. One CC to Sri D Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies wVtugh -.,:' HIGH COURT DATED:2210112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.634 of 2012 t: 11 f4 ,,ii,:"* ? I A P B 2025 a .t t I { T C r.6 I I I ALLOWING THE CRLA @