The High Court · 2025

Judgment

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER HON'BI,D SRT JUSTICE ANIL IruMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No'67O OF 2OL7 JUDGMENT t (per 1cn'ble Sri Justice K'surender) 1. The appeliar-r' was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC for inflicting knife injuries with Kirpan on two deceased persons who are Dl (Ranrith saigal), and D2 (Subash)' owner and worker respectively in tl re Fast Food center namely R'R'R'Chineese Corner and sentenced to lil.e imprisonment vide judgment in S C'No'498 of 2OL4 dated 07 Ct6'2O17 passed by the Additional Metropolitan of Communal Offence Casr:s cum VII Sessions Judge [or trial Additional Metrocrlitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad' Aggrieved by the same, Present aPPt:al is filed'

2. Briefly, th': lacts of the case a-re that the appellant was a customer at R R Fl Chrneese Corner, fast food center run lly P'W' 1 and Dl. The appeltanl used to visit the Fast Food center once a week' According to P.\I . I , six months prior to the incident' [he appellant picked up quarre I with D 1 on the ground that some junk food was supplied which :<:sulted in the appellant becoming sick' 'Ihe appellant used to threale r DI frequently' On 07 'Ol'2O14 at about 11'00 a'm' when P.W. I w 3r1t to purchase vegetables from the shop of one Dharma, the I p'pellant felt while driving his motor cycle at the vegetable shop. 1'hc appellant started beating P'W' 1 and both decided I J 2 to go to the police station to res{e the quarrel. Meanwhile, D2, p.W.2 and P.W.6 went there and enquired with p.W.l. Meanwhile, Dl also went there and the appelrant took out Kirpan and stabbed on the reft side of the abdomen of Dl. Dl fell down and immediately the appellant rushed towards p.w. r when D2 intervened and tried to rescue P.W. 1, appellant also injured D2 on his left thigh. Appellant ran away after inflicting Dl and D2 with bleeding injuries. D I and D2 were taken to GSN Hospital, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. On the advise of the Doctors at cSN Hospital, D I and D2 were shifted to prime Hospital, Ameerpet. Dl was declared as brought dead at prime Hospital and D2 was initiany treated at Frime Hospital and thereafter, shifted to Sigma Hospital and from there to Gandhi Hospitar where he died on 24.O1.2014. .

3. P.W. I went to the police station and lodged English written complaint Ex.Pl at 1.30 p.m on the same day. The inspector of P.S.Kanchan Bagh/P.W. 18 received the said complaint and recorded, statement of P.W. 1. He then visited prime Hospital and recorded statement of D2. The dead body of DI was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for autopsy. P.W. 18 went to the scene of offence which was opposite to R.R.Food Center and prepared rough sketch of scene .of offence palchanama. At the scene, MOs.4 and 5, chappals were seized. The ! l I I I I I I ; statements of P'Wr;2 to 8' P.W.14 and others were recorded by 3 P.w.18.

4. The appellanl was arrested on the same day at 6'30 p'm' He was interrogated in the presence of P'W'9 and another' At the instance of the appell.r11, M{)1 Kirpan was recovered from his possession'

5. Requisition u'a's given to P'W' 17 / Magistrate for recording dying declaration of D2 P'W' 17 recorded the statement at 8'30 p'm on ll.Ol.2014- In the said statement' D2 narrated the incident and also the manner in wlrich one Sardarji' who was later identifiOd as the appellant had stahbed both Dl and D2'

6. The police filect charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 PC l,earned Se sr;tons Judge placed reliance on the evidence of 7 . P.W. 1, the comp lirrnt and also the medical evidence to frnd the appellant guilty o' :he offence of murder

8. karned cottttsel for the appellant argued that the incident had taken place in a spr'rr of moment and there was no preplan to cause injurie s to D 1 e'r'd D2 and also there was no premeditation with regard to clash Letween P W I and the appellant' In the incident' P.W. t had not rr ceived any injury and he was not referred to hospital l I I I 4 for treatment. There is any amount of doubt with regard to the genesis of the incident and also presence of p.W. 1 at that time.

9. He further submits that as per the evidence of p.Ws. t,2 and,6, immediately after the incident, three of them shifted. both the injured to GSN Hospital, S.R.Nagar and on the adrrice of the Doctors, they shifted D I and D2 to Prime Hospitals. As per the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.1l at GSN Hospital, he gave first aid to both injured and found one stab injury on the abdomen of Dl and also found one stab injury on the left thigh of D2. Immediately, treatment was started and the concerned police was also informed since there were no attendants attending on both the patients. The doctor called the police to shift the patients to Prime Hospital. As per the evidence of p.W. I 1, none of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 were present at the hospital and they did not shift the injured to Prime Hospital, which shows that p.Ws.l, 2 and 6 were not the eye witnesses to the incident and they have not shifted the inj ured either to GSN Hospital or to Prime Hospital. The evidence of p.W. 11,- falsifies the evidence of P,Ws. l, 2 and 6 in admitting the patients in GSN Hospital and also shifting them from GSN Hospital to prime Hospital. He further submits that as per the oral evidence of p.Ws. l, 2 and 6, the appellant stabbed Dl on the left side of abdomen. As per the evidence of P.W. I 1, the stab injury is on the right side of the stomach of D I. i 5

10. He further :;ubmits that as per the evidence of P'W' 1' the incident took plac': in front of the vegetable shop of one Dharma but as seen from the sketch (Ex P20)' the incident took place on the main road and particulttrly, the fast-food center of P'W' 1 was not shown in the sketch. Theretore, the scene of offence differs from the sketch and the evidence of P.\V' 1'

11. He further ;ubmits that as per the evidence of P'W'S' who is uncle of the deceased, when he went to police station at about 2'30 p.m, he saw the appellant in the lockup and he came to know that the appellant was i trrested by the police As per the evidence of P.W. 18 / Inspector of Police, he arrested the appellant at 6'30 p'rn near Satyam Theater ill- Ameerpet and on his confession he seized kirpan from the possession of the appellant

12. Counsel fu rt.her submits that D I died on the sa me day i'e' O7.Ol.2Ol4 in the night rvhereas, D2 died on 24'OL'20t4' While undergoing trea1.rlent, D2's dying <leclaration was recorded by the Magistrate/P.W. t'/ on 07 'Ol 2Ol4' As per the Dytng Declaration/ Ex.I'}I 8 of D2, the time of incident and involvement of persons differ fro m the evidence of P'Ws l ' 2 and 6 in the following ' i;. manner: 6 i) DI was stabbed by one person (sardarji) arrd D2 was stabbed by a,other person (sardarji) and it is also mentioned that three sardarjis have come to the fast-food center. ii) Immediately, the police came and arrested three Sardarjis. The reason given by D2 was business rivalry as both of them were running fast-food center. iii) Incident took place at 5.0O p.m on 07.Ol.2OL4, as such, there is any amount of doubt that which sardarji out of three sardarjis caused injuries to Dl and D2. iv) The ocular evidence of P.Ws. L,2 and 6 is not corroborated by the Dying Declaration of D2. As per the evidence of eye witnesses, the place of offence differs from the place of offence mentioned in the Dying Declaration of D2. v) The manner of incident did not take place as stated by eye witnesses as rt differs lrom the Dying Declaration of D2 and therefore, no credence can be given to the evidence of eye witnesses i.e., p.Ws.1, 2 and,6 since all of them are interested witnesses.

13. On the other hand, Iearned Additional Public prosecutor countered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and argued thal the incidenl happened at O7.O7.2O14 and on the very same day, complaint was filed within two hours. The complaint was I i i I I 7 received by the }rlagistrate on the same day' The arrest of the appellant was alsrt at 6'30 p'm on the date of the incident' In' the statement given b1' D2 to the learned Magistrate/P W'17' the incident was narrated clearlrr' Further, the eye witness account of P W' 1' P'W'2 and P.W.6, Ex.P1 r:omplaint, are consistent and make out the case against the aPPellartt' t4. The injuries f<rund on Dl are as follows - 1. Stab uto;t'td of size 3 x I cms into cauity deep ouer the Aii'iia" of the abdomen 1o cms later to the umbilicis' '"yn'"i'Jir; i"i"ri- iput and roush edqe mediat border "i",i so'o ni of paiallg clotted- blood in the peritoneal cauitg. 2. ruPture oJ'l.he colon' 3. mgsentry contusion'" According tr P.W.15, the cause of death was due to peritonitis due to stab injuq'.

15. D2 died whil: undergoing treatmen t on 24 'Ol 20 14' According to P.w.12,autopsyDoctor,folIowinginjurieswereloundonD2: "1. A deep penetrating injurg meosuring 17 cms in length and ;;p;;;i;",;t, uidth io cms-wtn cban cut marsins present in the left groin re,?rcn penetrating the.mu'scles uesscls ond enlered the t"ft inguinal rcqion associ oted tt'tith abdominal c,TuitA in celluitis of tltt surrounding tissucs' 2. Vertical itu:i-sed- injury measuring 22 cms i'n l.enqth and' 7 cms in muscle deep iiatn il""n'nt on tie late' aspecl of Left thigh .and i"iiiig tht nuscles, uessels u'ith celluitis of the sunounding tissues noted. 'n"' a

3. Pene-trating injury uith loss of skin flap ouer scrotal region in an area of 9 x 9 cms and both the testi.s aie exposed. witlt no scrotal skin ouer that, the sunounding trbsues or" bi;r"d..

4. noted." .Vertbal injury ouer left calf lO x 4 cm.s euid-ence of fa,sciotomg According to the opinion of p.W. 12, the cause of death of D2 was on account of multiple penetrating injuries and its complications.

16. The argument of the learned counsel that p.W. 11 stating that there were no attendants when Dl and D2 were shifted to Prime Hospital cannot form basis to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 about them witnessing the incident. There was a stab injury on the right side of the stomach of Dl. However, P.Ws.l, 2 and 6 stated rhat Dl was stabbed on the left side. The said discrepancy is ol no consequence when the injury was received on the abdomen, which is stated by all the.witnesses. The witnesses stating that it was on the left side of ihe abdomeq..-. cannot form basis to find that all the witnesses were planted as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. L7 . The scene of offence was on the road. p.Ws.1, 2 and. 6 stated that initially, altercation took place near the vegetable shop of one Dharma and thereafter, p.W. I and the appellant started 9 going towards poJ.i'::e station and it is at that juncture' tire D2 and others enquired rloout the altercation in between P'W 1 and the appellant. Further, D1 also came to the scene' \Alhen it is specihcally mentioned by the witnesses that initial confrontation of P.W.l and th,: appellant took place in front of one vegetable shop of Dharma-, that does not mean and it is not specifically stated by witnr:s;ses that the incident happened in front of Dharma Vegetable shop' While going to the police s1-ation from the vegetable strcrp, the incident happened in front of Sri Balaji Graphics and Xt:r'ox, which is shown in the sketch'

18. P.W.8, who is the uncle of D1 stated' in his examrnation that in the afternoon around 2.30 p.m, when he went to the police station, he founrl the appellant in the policc station lock up' However, accordi.ng to P'W'18, the appellant was arrested at 6'3O p.m. The arrest of the appellant is not disputed 'I'he incident';l happened arou:rrl 11.3O a'm and P'W'8' who was age'1 around 66 years having golle to the police station and finding the appellant behind bars wjll not in any manner have any adverse impact on the case of the prosecution or belie the version o[ tht: eye witness account. It is not the case of the appellant that hr: was in the police station vrllen the incident happened at l1'00 A M' l ! 1 I I I t I i i : i i I I I t I I I 10 lg. The version of D2 in the dying declaration is that three Sardarjis went to the shop and one of them stabbed Dl and thereafter D2. The id'entifrcation of the appellant as the person who inflicted injuries on both D1 and D2 is supported by the evidence of P.Ws' 1, 2 and 6 and corroborated by the statement of D2 before the Magistrate/P'W' 17' D2 'did not deny the involvement of the appellant' It is not disputed that the appellant is Sardarji. Onty for the reason of stating that one of the Sardarjis hadassaultedDlandD2inthedyingdeclarationwould'notin any manner create doubt about the appellant not being the perpetrator. D2 did not say that two different sardarjis had stabbed him and D1, as argued by the counsel'

20. karned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o[ Gurmukh Singh v' State of Haryanar, wherein it was hetd as follows: g* '''""o'J"'" "f ""'glc n22.Beforewepartwiththecase.tvetl.tlttltllikeLode.arlvobsemethatweare Ltlott or,ittiurt" tlrc accttsed cannot be not laying down that i' cuses of sinp-le iniury' rhe facts and convicted una"" sn"'"o'" ii)- iii lrrr''e to he lukett utk) cotrsileralion before arriving circumstances of at the conclusion tn*ii'-'iJ """ed shoull tte tqtpropriately cottvicted under "a'h'cos" Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 Purt Il IPC' 23. These are sonte 'factttrs trltit'h ttrc rtrlnired to ha taken irtto consideration before awardittg qppilui''')'" t'''i'i'"uc" t'i tl'" u'-c'tsed' These factors are only i I '(2009) 1s suPrem" court cases 635 11 illusn'ative itt chLtrzcter and not ethattstive' Each case has lo he seet ft'ttnt its 'r'l".iot p"uprrti"'e The relevantfactors are as under: tn) Motive or Pr(vtous enmiry: 'b:, wh;;;;"; tltt i t, ident hai taken place on tly.wur-1f thc motttt'ttt: 'ii, iin'ir,"r,i,,, k,towledge of the )ccused while inJticringtlrc hlou or iniurl' ',7t'iiii',li7i',',i"';;;,;;;;,;;;;'tonto'"ou'tv or the victim died after set'erat dat,.s; roi The sravin. tlinension dnd nature of injury: 'ii ri"ig, "r,l t c rcral health condirion of the accused: @) lVhether the 'tL;ttty was caused withoui premeclitation.in a sudden fight; (h) The norure t;nd size o1 weZpon used ior inflicting the injutl' and the fitrce u ith which tht lttctw wa.s inllicted: ','ii rin ,ri*innt b,tckground and adverse history of lhe accused'. ',!,','i'1r,,|i,i',i," iriiT'-,,i'"'"a was not suf'ficient in the ordinun' t,l,u,,j,,i,l" ',ii'i,,^nl,,tt ,t lt:r criminal cases pending against the acu,t'rld. (it) Ltci,le,,t ot cr rn'd within the family members or close. r''lalton'r' 'i*)'ii" ,onaur, tnd behaviou'r of ihe occus"d qfte,r th,e incidcnt ll'l'ctlrct rhe actned hatl t(tkt\t the iniured/tirc deceased to the hospikl tnmerliatelv to ettsure lhttt hc/s,kt gets proper medical treatment? 'riri'ir" ,,:, ,,rro,,' if thl fictors which can be taken into cont i'lerutitttr tthila gj,i'uurrrg on apl'r,ipriate sentence to the accused " ,n catt:e lrath'but'the death was because of shock: 'ourse 21,. He also relLe d on the judgment of Honble Suprerne Court tn State of U.P v. IUadan Mohan and others2' wherein it was held that non examirrzltion of the localit5r witnesses would create doubt on the Prosecutlon versron' 22 He also reli,ld on the judgment of Honlole Supreme Court rn Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) 3 seeking indulgence of this Court to alter the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section ltO4-II IPC' I (19891 3 supreme court c rses 390 r 12018) 8 Supreme Court C rses 228 a.) Exceptions I and 4 of Section 300 of IpC are as follows: 12 '(Exception 7.-When culpable homictd.e is not murder._CuLpabte homicid.e i.s not murder if thn offender, whikt d-epriued of thc pouer of self_control bg graue and sudden prouocation, causes the d-eath of thn p"uo, who gaue ihe prouocatbn or couses the death of ang other person bg mi_stake or icid,ent. The aboue exception i.s subject to the foLlowing prou"sos:_ (First) offender as an excuse for kilting or d.oing harm to onA person. -That the prouocation i.s not sought or uoluntarily prouoked_ bg the (se9orydly) to the lanu, or bg o pubLic seruant in the lawful public seruant. -That the prouocotion is not giuen by angthing d.one in obed.ienci:e "Tnrrln oS"th. porrn* oy "uii (fhndQ) exerci.se of the right of piuate defence. -That the ptouocation is not giuen by angthit-tg done in the lau_tful Explanation.-Whether tlte prouocation wos graue ancl sudden enough to preuent the offence from amounting to murd.er is o questiort of fact. Exception 4.-culpable homi.cide is not nturcLcr tf it i.s committed, utithout premeditation in a sudden frght in the heat of pctssicsn- u.pon a sud.d-en quarreL and without the offender hauing taken und.uc aduantagc or acted. in o cntel or u nusual manner. "

24. The appellant was hotding a knile wirh him. He stabbed Dl and D2 multiple times as evident from the injuries they received. It is not the.case of the appellant that he was attacked by p.Ws.lf 2 and 3 or Dl and D2. Further, the police also did not find any injuries on the body of the appellant when he was arrested. The circumstances do not suggest either grave and sudden provocation or that the stabbing was on the spur of movement after any altercation. In the said circumstances, either exception I I I i I i i I I I +; 1 or exception 1 of Section 3OO IPC cannot be relied' on to find 13 thatthedeathol.DlandD2isnotmurder.Therearenomerits in the appeal arLcl accord'ingly, liable to be dismissed'

25. Criminal A.prpeal is dismissed. Since the appellan't is on bail' the concerned (lourt is directed to cause appearance of the appellantandsendhimtoprisontoserveouttheremaining period of senterLc:e. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR i\ JS ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Additionerl frrletropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal Offence Case cum Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with records )

2. The lll Additroral Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3. The Station Fouse Officer , S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 4. The Superintondent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad. 5. Two CCs to F'r,blic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OLJT) 6 One CC to SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copre'; kullgh w t t0 I /,t :, -/.- ., Ht. s ir. 1o({ r.s 2 5 fiAn 20[ ofSpr, TC t 6(' z o HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 JUDGMENT CRL,APPEAL No.670 of 2017 I)ISM ISSING THE ('RL.APPEAL &s