The High Court · 2025

CounselfortheAppellant:SriRajaShekarRaoSalvaji(LegalAid) Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: -t*,i.': *reSffi -U:'. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDE;R AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE E.V.VENUGOI'A.L CzuMINAL APPEAL No.l 239 0F 20L8 JUDGMENT: (1;er'The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeat is frled by appellant/Accused, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum-XIII Adcll. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad a1. L.B.Nagar, Ranga Redd5'Diso-ict, in S.C.No.547 of 2011, dated 13.0t].2018. The appellalt was corrvicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a frne of Rs.1,OO0/- for the offence under section 302 of IpC.

2. According tc, the case of the prosecution, on O1.O2.2077 around

12.30 P.M., zr quarrel took place between pW.2-Kotl-ra pra,sad, pW.5_ T.Rajkiran, and l{anumanthu (not examined) regarding drinking water at Road N,t.2, Green Par.k Colony. pW.2 was be:tten up by Hanumanthu, along w.ith his friends, including the appellant herein. PW.2 then informe:d Ranjith Reddy (deceased) on phone and asked hirn to harrdle the situation. Aror.rnd 5.3O p.M., the deceas;ed went to Green Hills colonv, and met his friends prasad (pw.2) anrl Raj Kira, (PW.s), and there,fteT e.quired with the appellant regarding the 2 t i dispute at his house. The appellant quarreled with them' and with a sharp edged weapon, stabbed the deceased on his back' The deceased wasthentakentotheAwareGlobalHospital.Fromthere,hewas shifted to Sri Lakshmi Hospital, Nagole, where he was declared dead' PW. 1, who is related to the deceased' was informed about the incident, and then he went to the hospital and found the deceased dead. Then, PW. 1 went to the Saroornagar Police and lodged a complaint-Ex.P1. In the written complaint' PW'1 narrated about the quarrei between PWs.2, 3, others, and the appellant'

3. The complaint was lod'ged at 9'00 P M' PW' 1 1' who was the then Inspector of Police, registered the crime ' and went to the hospital where the inquest proceedings were heid' Thereafter' the body was shifted for postmortem examination' The postmortem was conducted by PW.10, who found the following injuries: .1. A uerticallg placed spindle shaped stab injury of 2 x 0'5 c.m. x cauity deep present on tle left mid back in the parauer region i.e. 4 c.m- lateral and to the left of uertebral column' Margins are clean cut end end's are pointed' 2. Internallg the tefi tung is lacerated at the louter lobe of 2 x 7 c.m. x through and ttTrough rtith sutounding antusion ',] and has c()llapsed about 2 ltrs of partiallg clotteLl blood present in tfuz left pleural cauity. " The cause of dezrr-h, according to PW. 10, was 'Hypovoiarmic shock, consequent to a stab injury to the chest. 4 . The appellan t was arreste d on OZ .O2.2O 1 i by the fiaroornagar Police, personnel. 'lhe confession was recorded, and the krrife, used to stab the deceased was recovered at the instance of thr: appellant. Having concludec the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

5. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellanr. mainly on the basis of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, pWs.2 ald S.

6. The learned legal aid counsel appearing for thc: appellalt submits that the.e: was a quarrel between str.rdents who were more than 15 in nrrmber. The said act of the appellant cu ur only be considered as prirr;lte defence. when more than 15 persons went to the house of the appeilant, the appellant reacted in the said manner, resulting in a statr injury to the deceased. l,earned couns,:l relied on the Judgments ot. the Honourable Supreme Court irL Vijag @ 4 Vijagakumar a. Storte Represented bg Inspector of Police t; Anbazhogan o. State Represented bg the Inspector oJ Policez'

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand' submils that the appellant had exceeded his right to private defence and had knowledge that stabbing with a knife would cause death'

8. According to PW.2, there was a fight initially near the colony involving PW.2, PW.s, the appellant, and other students' In the cross- examination, PW.2 admitted that the appellant and the deceased were intermediate friends studying in the same college' PW'2 is another eye-witness who speaks about the appellant stabbing the deceased' According to him, when the incident happened, nearly 40-5O people had gathered at the scene. g. According to the postmortem doctor, the deceased received one stab injury, and the second injury was an internal injury resulting from the hrst injury. The incident happened in front of the house of the appellant. Admittedly, the deceased was called by PW'2 and PW'5 for the reason of there being a quarrel' A11 of them went to the house of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was confronted by the ' 2025 SCC Online sc 123 '? 2023 SCC OnLine sc 857 -1 5 deceased and severa,l other students. When the deceased and the other students questioned the appellant in front of hisi house, the appellant tool< ol-rt a knife and stabbed the deceased once from the back.

10. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Vijagakurnar,s case (supra- 7), held that the incident happened in a spur of rnoment and was not pre-plan,ed or premeditated; therefore it could not amount to an offence under Section 3o2 of the India, penar cocle. A sim ar view was taken bv the Honourable Supreme Court in Anbazhagan, s case (supra-2). 1'he Honourable Supreme Court had rrarrated the principles that could be considered to determine ,r,hether. the offence falls within an1' of the exceptions under Section 300 or- the Indian Penal Code.

11. In Anbazhagcn's case, the Honourable Supreme C rurt held as follovi,s: "66. Ferv irnportant principles of law discernible .fr<:m the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:- (1) When the,:ourt is confronted with the question, rvhat offence the accr:sed could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is i I I I I I i I l 6 described in Clauses (1) to (+) of Section 300 of the IPC' the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate:A' is bound hand and foot- B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of A" shoots A' in his head killing him instantaneously' Herq, there will be no difhculty in holding that the intention of B' in shooting A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused' The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC' Taking another instance' 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' whiie the latter is asleep on his bed Taking aim at the left chest of A" 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of A' and runs away. .A' dies shortly thereafter' The injury to A' was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death' There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' This would bring the act of 'B' within Ciause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused. (2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fa1l within Clauses (1) to (a) of Section 30O of the IPC' the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder' will be taken out of the purview of murder' if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section.IntheeventoftheCaSefallingwithinaIlyofthose exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 3O4 of !t-' ' - 7 the IPC, if t:he case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (l ) to (3) of Section 3OO of the IPC. It rvould be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is suclr as to fali vrithin Clause (4) of Section 3O0 of the IPC. Again, the intentic,n or knowledge of the accused may be sr-rch thlrt only 2nd or 3rcl part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be affracted but not ar,J' of the clauses of Section 30O of the IPC. ln that situation erlso, the offence would be culpable homicirle not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be al offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 12nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part [I of Section 3O4 if the case fall within 3rd :art of Section 299 of the IPC. (3) To put it ir1 other words, if the act of an accused person fa1ls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homi< ide as described irr Section 299 of thre IPC it is punishable under the hrst part of Section 3O4. Lf, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would appl'y when there is 'guilty intention,' whereirs the second par1. would apply when there is no such inte ntion, but there is 'guilty knowledge'. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufhcient .n the ordiner'r course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 3OO of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. (5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) w-hen the case falls under one or the other of the 8 6 clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cau se death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 30O of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likelY to cause death' To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part' the crime of murder is first established ald the accused is then given the beneht of one of the exceptions to Section 3O0 of the IPC, while under the second part' the crime of murder is never established at ali' Therefore' for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC' the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 3OO of the IPC' (6) The word likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possitrly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing wiil 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion' the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likelY to cause death' (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 3OO of the IPC) has always to ; I 1 ) I i t I i i l ,l 9 be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charg;e under Section 302 of the IpC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide an ounting to murdt:r' ald those not ajnounting to murder would fall. Culpable :romicide is not murder when the case is brought withir:L thr: five exceptions to Section 3O0 of the IpC. But, even t.hotrgh none of the said hve exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case undr:r any of the four clauses of Sectiorr 3OO of the lP(l to ss"lrin the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in estabiishing atty ont of the four clausr:s of Section 300 of the IpC, namel1., l stly t,) 4thly, the chalge of murder would not be made out and tile case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to nurder as desr;ribed under Section 299 of the IpC. (8) The court must address itself to the question or mens rea. rf Clause th:rdly of Section 30O is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the cleL:eased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evrdence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarih. have regard to the nature of the u,eapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, clegree c,f force used in c.ausing the injury, the manner of attacl<, the circumstanr;es preceding and attendant on the attack. (9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpabl: homicide a murder. The intention to cause tnjury or injuries sufllcient in the ordinary cause of nature ro cause -l t ! I 10 s death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. (10) When single injury inflicted by the accust!-d results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a genera-I principle' can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case' (11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 3O0 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies' (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden frght or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge' and be one under Section 3O4 Part II of the offence would the IPC." I \ 11

12. The acr ol the appelant stabbing the deceased onc.e on his back occurred *'he, the deceased, along 15 others, \4.ent to the house of the appellant,. Actmittediy, there was no pre_meditation <.,r aly kind of preplan that the appellant entertained. The incident happened in a spur of moment when the appellalt was confronted by the deceased and the other students. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the appe'llant entertained any intention to cause th. death of the deceased, and further, it is seen from the assault that cniy one stab injury was inllicted by the appellant.

13. In the said r:ircumstalces, we deem it appropriate t,) convert the conviction to one under section 304 part II of the Indian penal code. Accordingly. the appellant shall undergo imprisonme et of seven

14. It is informe d by the learned Additional public pro,secutor that the appellant is in jail since 13.03.2O1g, i.e., seven vears.

15. Accordinglv, Criminal Appeal is parfly allowed , and the conviction recorded by the XIII Additiona-r District & Sessions Judge- cum-XIII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad ar L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dislrict, in S.C.No.547 of 2OIL, dated 13.03.201g. is set I 12 aside afld the conviction of the appellant is converted to the offence under Section 304 part II of the Ind'ian Penal Code' Since the the sentence of seven years, he shall be set appellant has undergone at liberty forthwith. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFIGER To, 2 .) 1 The Xlll Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Xlll Additional Meiropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L B Nagar' Ranga Reddy District. The Xll Additional District Judge, LB Nagar, R R District The Superintendent, Central Jail, Cherlapaly, R R District' The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station' Hyderabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Higrr court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad.IOUTI One CC to Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji(Legal Aid) [OUT] Two CD Copies 4

6. 7. VH/DL ry- HIGH COURT DATED: 201031202s I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1239 of 2018 I J i$e s 4 I4: i.o 1 CI APn 2025 > !: * ?\: A, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL @