The High Court · 2025

Sri Karri Murali Krishna Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : I i I 1 I -$'-,+-==7 THE }IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON0URABLE SRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI(ANTI (]RIMINAI APPEAL No.1111 OF.2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) The appell mt was found guilty by the learned Specir Sessions Judge for the ollence under Section 302 and 323 of the IrLdian Penal Code and Sectir,n 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, 1989' Questioning the said conviction., present appeal was fi1ec1'

2. Heard lear nerl counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutc r for the respondent-State.

3. PW. 1 is tl re rrother of the deceased and the onll eye-witness supporting the case of the prosecution. PW'-8-S'I of Pclice having received information about the deceased being attacked and undergoing treatment, went to the Government hospital at Tandur t'hel e PW' 1 was present arrd alsc tr,:r deceased son being attended bl doc:tors' When questioned by I,W.tl, PW. 1 stated that her son Shivshankar took the younger sister ol the appellalt namely Sivamala, three months ago ald came back the nex1. day. The appellart harboured grudge against the deceased for taling his sister for a day without informing anyone. On

12.05.2073, the deceased went to his village to visit PW. 1. PW.3-friend I I i I I i I I i I : i, 2 of the deceased and the deceased started from the house on the motorcycle to attend a wedding. At a distance, the appellant threw stones at the deceased, as such, PW'3 immediately went back and informed PW. 1 about the incident. PW.3 took her to the place where the appellant was beating the deceased' PW'1 intervened and appellant hit PW. 1 on the left eye and pushed her aside, abusing her in frlthy lalguage. The deceased was hit with a stone, kicked with legs by the appellant, and was badly injured' PW'1 informed her brother PW'2 and others who shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital' Tandur' As already stated, the Police having received information' PW'S went and recorded the statement of PW' 1 on 12'05'2015' which was registered as FIR.

4. The deceased while undergoing treatment died on 13'05'2015' Autopsy was conducted by PW.7 at 2'3O p'm' on the same day' PW'7 found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "i) Contusion over left temporal region of skull of stze 2 x I c.m. with fracture of temporal bone ii) Left black eYe PresenL. iii) Laceration over chin of size 2 x 1 x O'5 c'ms' iv) Contusion over right side of forehead of 1 x 0'5 cms' . ;:i -=ta!rFi!rz 3 v) Contusi,rn cver right forearm of size of 3 x 2 crns liacture upper end radius. vi) contusi )n (lver chest wall of size 2 x 1 cms. vii) Lacera.ion of size 3 x 2 x O.5 cms over right grate t.oe with fracture m:tat;rrsa1. viii) Lacerz tion of size of 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over right lou'er end of radius frat turt:."

5. Further P ff. i' stated that on opening the bodl , ht found the following internr I iniury: i) Intracranial h,:mrtrrhage in pontine and temporal regions The reason of d:ath was massive intracranial hemorrhage s econdar5r to head injury le,rding to cardio respiratory arrest, accor<ling to the opinion of PW.7

6. The learnt,d Sessions Judge convicted the appellant ,:rn the basis of the testimor y o I PW. 1 who is an eye-witness an<l mother of the deceased.

7. Three grorrnds; were raised by the counsel for the appeilant: il PW. 1 is the rnother of the deceased ald an interested ivitness. Her evidence is not corroborated by PW.3-Narend-er who a11egerlly informed 4 her about the incident al1d took PW. 1 to the scene. PW.3 turned hostile, as such, the evidence of PW. 1 cannot be believed' ii) The injuries that were found on the deceased could be caused by an accident as admitted by PW.7. Since ttre death was result of an accident, the question of convicting the appellant for causing injuries on the basis of PW. 1's evidence is incorrect' iii) The doctor who treated PW. l was not examined' As such' Ex'P15- wound certifrcate of PW' 1 cannot be considered as corroboration to PW. 1's evidence. PW. 1 is the mother of the deceased' She gave statement Ex'Pl to 8. PW.8, who recorded the statement in the hospital' On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered at 2'00 p'm' and the same was sent to the jurisdictional magistrate. In the complaint arrd also before Court' PW. 1 narrated that both PW.3 and her son left the house on the motorbike to attend a wedding' Immediately, thereafter' PW'3 came back and informed PW. 1 that the appellant was assamlting the deceased and PW.3 took PW. 1 to the scene' There' PW' 1 witnessed the beating by the appellant on the chest, head and other parts of the body of deceased with a stone' 5 9 . PW. 1 als c s,t ated that she was injured on the left- eye by the appellant. PW 1 .r as treated in the Government HospitiLl at Tandur where the dect ast:r1 died while being treated. Ex.PlS-wound certifrcate reflects that P J/. I received swelling over left eye. Though, the doctor who issued rs< uni. certificate was not examined, it rvill not have aly adverse impac - o'-r the prosecution case. PW. 1 stated th at when she intervened, vrh ile 1.he appellant was attacking her son, t he appellant injured her on thr: eye. Ex.P1S-wound certihcate corroborittes with the version of P\tr/. I about her being present when the incident had taken place and thal the, appellant had assaulted her when she intervened while the appe lart attacked the deceased. It is not the carse of defence that Ex.P15 rvz -s fabricated. Non examination of the doctor who issued Ex.P15 is of no consequence, in the present facts of the case

10. The argunent of the counsel that since PW.3 u,h c had taken PW. 1 to the scr,ne 'vas declared hostile, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be I i considered, ca:rnot be accepted. Though, PW.3 had tzLken PW. I to the scene, hower.e -, PW. t had witnessed the appellant assaulting the t I deceased. As already discussed, PW. 1's intervention resulted in the appellaxt beati rg her on the eye. She received an injury on the eye and shi: was treatr d. 'the hostilit5, of PW.3 in the present irase has no bearing on thr: 'eliable and consistent testimony of pW. 1. I i I i Tt ,; X 6

11. As seen from the injuries, the deceased received B injuries and the doctor also found intracranial hemorrhage resulting in cardio respiratory arrest and consequent death' The ma-rlner in which the appellant had caused injuries, the intent on the part of the appellant to commit murder is apparent' Fr-rrther' as evident from the circumstances, the appellant was waiting to attack the deceased' It is not the case, that there was any quarrel, pursuant to which the appellant assaulted the deceased' L2. There are no grounds to interfere with the hnding of the learned Special Sessions Judge, which are reasonable' probable and based on record. in the said circumstances' we do not frnd any infrrmity with the hnding of the learned Special Sessions Judge' in convicting the accused

13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed' //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEP TY REGISTRAR I CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S-C/ST (POA) Act-cum-Vll ' il;iid;i Dilirici ano s"tiiont Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (with records, if anY)

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Tandur Ranga Reddy District 3. The Station House Officer, Karankote PS, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District 5. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri Karri Murali Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies 1a' I I ! t 4,. HIGH COI'RT DATED:Odtl02l2025 JUDGMEN T CRLA.No,,1111 of 2017 DISMISSING THE CRLA (A- \r/ 2 I I I I i i a -) 01 APr 20[ z oA * c * .e1,-X_t_