Hyderabad High Court · 2025

rep. Sri C.Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: Additional Public Prosecutor THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SI'RENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JI'XANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.114 OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sn Jusfice K.Surender)

1. The Criminal appeal is frled by the appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 questioning the Judgment dated 16.0l.2Ol7 in S.C No.458 of 2015 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, wherein the accused Nos.l and 2 were found guilty for the offences sunder Sections 427 and 3O2 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPCI. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.S,O0O/- each for the offence under Section 3O2 read with 34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 427 of lPC.

2. Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record. ) KS.J & JAK,J Crl.A.No.I 14 of 2017

3. PW. 1 is the wife of the deceased and complainant. According to her, both accused Nos.l arld 2 are neighbours and they have cordial relationship with them. However, dispute arose on account of drain, which was running in front of their houses and the said dispute was settled by PW.3 - Gopal, who was Surpanch of the village. About four days prior to the incident, Maize crop was raised by the appellant and harvested in their 1and. Some unknown persons set flre to the crop and the appellants suspeoted that it was the deceased, who was responsible for the incident of setting fire to the Maize crop. On the date of incident, both the appellants went to the house of the deceased. PW. 1 - wife of the deceased and PW.2 - son of the deceased were present in the house. Appellants started throwing boulders on the doors of the house, meanwhile, the deceased and PW.3 went there. Both PWs.l and 2 locked themselves in the house. On seeing the deceased, accused No.1 gave a blow on the deceased's head and accused No.2 also hit him on the head. The deceased fell on the floor with bleeding injuries to his head. PW. 1 tried to give first aid, and immediately, deceased was taken to 3 KS,J & JAK,J Crl.A.No;l l4 of 2017 Government Hospital at Shadnagar and from there, to Osmania General Hospital at Hyderabad.

4. The complaint was prepared by PW. 1 and handed over to PW. 16, who is Sub-Inspector of Police. In the said complaint, which was filed at about 07.30 am at

31.01.2015, PW. 1 stated that the appellants had trespassed into their house, threw stones on the door and when the deceased arrived, he was assaulted with the stick, which was lying in the house of the deceased. The investigation was handed over by PW. 16 to PW. 17. PW. 17 went to the Osmania General Hospital and conducted inquest panchanama. Thereafter, the body was sent for Post Mortem Examination. PW. 1s-doctor conducted post mortem examination and found the following injuries:

1. Fracture of frontal bone. 2. Fracture of left temporal bone 3. Laceration measuring 2x3 over the frontal region of scalp.

4. Laceration measuring 2x3 over the left temporal region of scalp. According to PW. 15, the cause of death was due to head injury. 4 KS,J & JAK,J Crl.A.No.l l4 of 2017

5. The appellant No. 1 was arrested by PW. 17, however, appellant No.2 was absconding. Charge sheet was filed by PW. 17 showing accused No.2 as absconding. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed after accused No.2 surrendered before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar on O5. 10.2015.

6. PWs. 1, 2 and 3 are witnesses to the assault by accused Nos.1 ald 2. Believing the evidence of eye witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge recorded conviction.

7. l,earned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, for which reason the alleged attack had taken place. Further, there was no premeditation to commit murder of the deceased. The case is that appellant Nos.l and 2 went to the house of the deceased and meanwhile, the deceased went to the scene. The deceased was allegedly attacked with stick that was in his house, which itself shows that the incident happened at the spur of the moment and there was no intent on part of appellants to commit murder I 5 KS,J & JAK,J Crl.LNo.I l4 of 2017

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand, would submit that the injuries found on the deceased would reflect that the appellants have deliberately assaulted the deceased and they had knowledge that such assault would cause death.

9. PW. 1 stated that initially accused No. 1 gave blow on the head of the deceased with stick and then accused No.2 hit on the head of the deceased. PW.2, son of the deceased stated that accused No. I gave two blows with a stick on the head of the deceased, whereas, accused No.2 hit the deceased with a stone on the head. PW.3, who came along with the deceased to the house stated that accused No. 1 gave two blows on the head of the deceased with a stick and accused No.2 hit the deceased with stone.

10. Post Mortem Examination Doctor - PW. 15 found four injuries on the deceased. In the cross-examination, PW. 15 admitted that injuries 3 and 4 are possible with sharp edged weapon and not possible with MO.4, which is stone. 6 KS,J & JAK,J Crl.A.No.l l4 of 2017 1 1. The appellalts who are neighbours, went to deceased's house suspecting that the deceased burnt the Maize crop, and meanwhile, the deceased went there along with PW.3. When questioned by the deceased, he was beaten on the head initially by accused No. 1 and thereafter, by accused No.2. According to PWs.2 and 3, the assault by accused No.2 was with a stone, however, the post mortem examination doctor clearly stated that the 3.a and 4th injuries found on the body were not possible with stope. Going by evidence of PWs.1 to 3, accused No.1 gave blows on the head of the deceased. The version of accused No.2's involvement in the incident, when viewed in the back ground of medical evidence, creates doubt regarding accused No.2's participation and beating the deceased.

12. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel, there was no premeditation 1n attacking the deceased. The deceased had come at a later point of time, when the appeliants were at the house of the deceased. The stick, which was there at the house of the deceased was taken and accused No.1 hit the deceased on his head twice. I Y l KS,J & JAK,J Crl.A.No.l I4 of 2017 1ll. In Pulicherla. Ndgard.ju @ Nagaraja Reddg u. St@te of A.Pt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ...29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, witi care a-nd caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 3O4 Part I or 3O4 Part tI. Many petty or insignilicant matters - plucking of a fruit, stralng of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterarce of a rude word or even arl objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usuat motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under ggq!!94-.fQp, a-re not converted into offences punishable under section 3O4 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Sgq[9l382. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all hght; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre- meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whetier the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individua.l cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may. ) )

14. The act of attacking the deceased has to be viewed in the back ground of the situation. There were differences between them and the Mai-e crop of the appellants I I I Ai. 2006 .op."me court3010, 8 KS,J & JAKJ Crl.A.No.l )4 of 2017 burnt and the appellants suspected that it was the deceased who burnt their crop. The attack appears to be on account of a sudden fight, which took place on the date of the incident and is not premeditated. Placing reliance on the observation of the Honble Supreme Court, we are inclined to set-aside the conviction under Section 302 of IPC and convict accused No.1 under Section 304-II of iPC and sentence him to undergo seven (O7) years imprisonment. In so far as accused No.2 is concerned, in view of the above discussion, her conviction is set-aside, giving benefit of doubt. i5. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The concerned Court shall summon the appellant/accused No. 1 and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand To, \ closed. Sd/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA JOINT REG ARMA TRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER I i

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar. (with records, if any) (By Speed Post, RPAD)

2. The Mekopolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad 5. The Superintendent, Central Women Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad 7

6. The Station House Officer, Kondurg Police Station, Mahabubnagar 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] B. One CC to Sri Ruthwik Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies \ VH/gh ,,k,fr,, ,-_ I I .l HIGH COURT DATED: 2310112025 0 \ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.114 of 2017 I I ltlE S14 0 3 rPB 2[25 ) ( * ALLOWING THE APPEAL @ d