Of High Court · 2025

4. Yellamshetti Kumaraswamy, S/o- Komuraiah, 25 years, R/o. Sriramulapalli. (A-4)

5. Kethe Rajaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, 49 years, Rio Ambala. (A-5) ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED Counsel for the Appellant: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.94O OF 2Ol4 &' LO44 OF 2OL7 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Ilon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. Crl.A.No.940 of 2014 is preferred by the appellant/A-1, questioning his conviction for the offence under Section 304- II of IPC. Crl.A.No. lO44 of 2Ol7 is preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of this appellant/A- 1 , and A-2 to A-5, who were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 427, 302 and 3O7 rlw. 149 of IPC, by the Sessions Court, but stand acquitted.

2. Since both the Appeals arise out of common judgment, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 to A-5 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. The appellant was arrayed as A- 1 . A- 1 to A-5 were charged for the offences under Sections 148, 447, 427,3O2, and 3O7 r/w. 149 of IPC. The charges were framed on the ground of killing the deceased, namely Santhosh and causing 2 grievous injurr,:s to vdtness/P.W.4 and attempting to murder him. The incrdent happened on 15.08.2O12. According to the complarnt/Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.4, grandfather of the deceased, P.W.1 purchased Ac.03-00 of 1and. The appellant/A-1 and one Buchaiah raised disputes quesrtioning as to why P.W.I purchased the land of Eeshwaramma who is the paternal arrnt of A- 1. A- 1 and others quarreli:d with P.W. 1 previous ly and the issue was taken up bef:rre the elders. A civi I case was filed before Huzurabad Qourt by P.W. 1 and P. \V. I obtained restraint orders agair',st the accused and (rhers from the Court. On 15.O8.20 12, th e deceased, P.Wr;,2 to 4, and others went to Ambala in view of Pochamma festival and returned home- Around 3 p.rrr., all of them had lunch. The deceased, P.W.3 and P.W.4 r,vent to the land which r.vrr's purchased by P.W. 1. The appellant was found in the land and the Driver of the tractor was til.ing the land with a tra(:tor. Keys of the tractor were taken b',. P.W.4 and the accused tried to assault P.W.4. P.W.3 intt,rvened and A-1 beat F'.W.3 with a stick. Thereafter, A 2 to A-5 who were in the a cljoining fields came there and a1l o I them assaulted P.W. l, P.W.4, and the deceased. 3

5. The injured/P.W.4 was taken to the hospital. P.W. 12, who was the In charge Doctor, found the following injuries on P.W.4: 2 |) .) 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 Laceration over temporo parietal 6 x lz x Yz cm. Laceration over left thumb 4 x Yz x Yz crn. Laceration over left fore arm 4 x lz x Yz crn. Laceration over left fore arm 2 x Yz x Yz crn. Laceration over right fore arm 3 x 2 cm. Laceration over mandible 2 x I x Yz cl:-:r. Laceration over right side of eye 2 x2 x /2. Contusion over left side of chest 4 cm. Laceration over right parietal region 6 x lz x Y" cm. Abrasion over right side of neck 6 x 5 cm. 4 Lacerations on occipital side of scalp 3 x Yzx Yz, 2 cm, 1 cm and 4 cm."

6. The deceased died in the hospital and post mortem was conducted by P.W.13. P.W. 13 found the following injuries on the deceased's body: "1. Cut laceration of right ear pinna noted. 2. Laceration present behind the right ear, Horizontally placed measuring 3 x 1.5 cm x bone deep. 4 3 4 5 Lac erration present and placed perpen- dic'l1ar to injury No.(2) measuring 3 x 1.5 cm x bone deep. Lar e:ration present over the root of the nosrr (Gl;rbella) measuring 2 x 1.5 cm x bone dee'Jr. Lac eration present over the upper 1ip on the left side and extending into the left nostril, measuring 5 x O.75 cm x muscle dee1t. 6 Mult,iple laceration present over the scalp on the occipital region and one iaceration pre sent over the middle of skull, margins are r.rregular and uneven i) Laceration scaip present over middl,: of skull, measuring 4 x 1.1 cm x bon,: deep. 11) Laceration scalp present over mid point of occipital region measuring 6 < 4cm x skull deep. ii1) Laceration scalp present over occipttal region on right side measuring 4.5 '< 2.O cn x skull deep. iv) Laceration scalp obliquely p'lacecl v) below injury No. (ii) noted, measuring I x 1.Ocm x bone deep. Laceration scalp present and horizontally placed below injury No (ir ) measuring 3 x 1.5 cm x skull decp. 5 7 Conti.rsion scalp present over occipital region measuring 5cm x 4cm and over the temporo-occipital region right side measuring9x6cm. B Sub Arachnoid Hemorrhage present all over the brain with sub-dural Hematoma over the occipital lobe on the right side."

7. According to P.W. 13, the camse of death was head lnJury B. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against A-1 to A-5 for the above said offences. However, learned Sessions Judge found tlnat A-2 to A-5 were not complicit of the offences alleged against them- Even A-1 was found not guilty for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC. However, appellant/A-l was convicted under Section 304-ll and 3Oi of IPC. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the incident happened at the spur of the moment and there was no pre- meditation and intention to cause death of the deceased, by A-1.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that grievous injuries were received by P.W.4. Both the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4 narrated the incident, which reflects the 6 involvement o1 A-2 to A-5. For the said reason, the S:essions Court has conmitted an error in acquitting A-2 to ,\-5. In the backgroun c[ of convincing evidence of P. Ws. 3 anr [ 4, the acquittal of A-2 to A-5 has to be reversed and all A . to A-5 should be convicted for murder.

10. Having gone through the record, learned Slessions Judge discussed the evidence of P.W.4 to find A-2 to A-5 not guilty. Accorcling to learned Sessions Judge, P.W.4 almitted in his cross e'xamination that when he along u.itlr P.W.3 proceeded to tl'rc land, A-1 was with the Driver of the tractor and did not ollserve where A-2 to A 5 were present. P.W.4 further admitt ed that he took the keys of the tract.or and questioned the Driver as to why land is being tilled. Ii'urther, P.W.4 admitterl that he did not specifically speak about A-2 to A-5 beating the deceased and also A 2 to A 5 beating him. Similar omissrons were elicited during the cross-exanrination by P.W.3. In view of the said admissions by P.Ws.3 and 4, the presence ol A-2 to A-5 was doubted. Accordingly, benefit of doubt was extended to A-2 to A-5. 1 I . In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme C,turt in Raoi Sharma a. Sto.te (Goaerntnent of NCT of Delhi) and l qnother), held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

12. \n Ghureg Lal v. State of Uttar Prad.esn'' the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: "7O. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follotu the u-tell-settled principles crystolli.zed by number of Judgments if it is going to ouerntle or otherwise disfurb the tial court's acquittal: 1 . The appellate court mog onlg ouenule or othertuise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it has "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances oise in uthich the appellate court u.tould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the tial courl's decision. "Very substontial and compelling reasons" exist u.then: i) The tiol court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is polpablg u.trong: ' (2022) I Supreme court Cases 536 '1ZOOa) rO Suprerne Court Cases 450 8 ii) The, t rial court's decision utas based on an erron.olts i{i) Tht: r rial coutl's judgment is likelg to result it "g'ou" uieut of lau.,: rniscarriage tt justice" ; ru) The e'ntire approach of the tial coutl in decLling utitl tlrc euidence u'cs patentla illegal; u) The: tnal courl's judgment was manifestlu unjust and unreasonab e: ui) 'the tdal court has ignored the euidence or misrea(' tlte- mate rial eul(L?nce or has ignored mateial documents like dying declctrations / report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)Thi: iist is intended to be illustratiue, not exhaust[L](. 2 The appellate court must alutags giue proper u:< iglht and considerotion o the findings of the trial court.

3. If ttuo reasonable uieuLs con be reached_ one thctt leads to , u:quittdl, the other to conuiction the .ligh Courts,/ apy'ltate courts must t-ule in fauour of the accused."

13. Lezrrned .lublic Prosecutor has not made o -rt any compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acqrrittal of A-2 to A 5. Tlie incident happened when P.W.3, P.W.4, and the deccased v.rent to the land and they found A-1 ti1 ing the land, ar-rd ther. an altercation ensued. Accorcling to the witnesses, A-:l to A-5 assaulted P.W.4 and a so the deceased. However, the answers elicited in thr cross examinalion o P.Ws.3 and 4 makes the presence of A-2 to A-5 doubtful. 'lhe reasoning given by the learned S,lssions Judge u,hile accluitting A-2 to A-5, is based on record and in the backgroun cl. of contradictions elicited during thr: cross examination of I).Ws.3 ar,d 4, as discussed earlier. 9

14. There are no reasons to reverse the order of acquittal of A-2 to A-5. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.1044 of 2Ol7 is dismissed.

15. Insofar as appellant/A-1 is concerned, the evidence of A-1 assaulting both P.W.4 and the deceased is spoken to by P.Ws.3 and 4. The initial quarrel took place with A-1. A-1 enraged with the questioning by the deceased and P.W.4, started assaulting the deceased and also P.W.4. Admittedly, the reason for assault was that there were disputes regarding purchase of land by P.W. 1, which belongs to paternal aunt of A- 1 . Further, there were civil disputes pending before the Civil Court. On the date of incident also, A-1 assaulted P.W.4 and the deceased, enraged by the fact of P.W.4 questioning A-1 as to why A-1 was present in the field, then the keys of the tractor were snatched by P.W.4 with the support by the deceased. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly invoked exception 4 of 300 of IPC finding that the assault was not pre meditated and assault was as a result of quarrel and in the heat of passion. From the facts, it appears that the attack on deceased and P.W.4 was not intentional and premeditated' ^g 10

16. There rrc l1o grounds to trterfere with thc convtction of the apfcllarrt under Section 304-II of IpC. i{owever, the conviction u rLdcr Section 307 of ipC is convertcd 1.,r Section 326 ol IPO ard appellant is convicted accordingly.

17. 'l'he in:rdent is of the year 2072, and sincc 13 years have passeci by, the sentence of imprisonment unde - Section 304-ll of IPC is reduced to 4 years and for the offen,:e under Section 326 ,rf IPC, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment of 4 yeat-s. Eloth thc sentences shall run concurrentl.,,.

18. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No-94O of 2OL4 is partly allowed. Sir ce the appellant/A- 1 is on bail, he sha11 be summoned tx, 11r. concerned Court anci sent to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentencc impose<. bt, this Co urt. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S.S.C.S,M. SARMA REGISTRAR JPINT )r \. J+";; ON OFFICER

1. The Judge, Farrily Court cum Addltional District Judge, Karimnirgar. (with records, if any)

2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

3. The Superintenclent, Central Prlson at Warangal. (By Speed Post) 4. The Circle lnspector of Police, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tr:langana at HyderabadIOUT ] 6. One CC to Sri 'D. 7- Two CD Copies Plp/gh V-\t. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] To, \ HlGH COURT DATED:1810212025 i )'i. (r^i ?5APtzffi -.. \'.r'', i ')i .' - C) COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.940 of 2014 AND 1044 0F 20',t7 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL.A.NO.94O OF 2017 AND DISMISSING THE CRL.A.NO.1044 OF 2017 1O .rr"L tr{,'