The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER :4$ti I THE HONOURABLE SMT,JUSTICE TIRUMALA I) =VI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2223 of 2110 EADA ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the pet t oner-accused against the judgment dated 25.10.2010 passed in Cr A. No.107 of 2009 by the lV-Additional District & Sess ons Judge, Mahaboobnagar (FTC), confirming the judgment dale d 27.08.2009 passed in S.C No.547 of 2OOB by the Assistant Se ssions Judge Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar.

2. lnspite of the matter being posted under le caption for dismissal, no one represented the petitioner. Hence, the matter is treated as heard and the orders are being passed.

3. Heard Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learr ed Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State

4. The case of the prosecution is that the dec: ased was the father-in-law of the accused. On 31 .07.2008, the de<:r ,ased wanted to invite his relatives for the 1 1 th day delivery function ,t his daughter and he was proceeding to STD booth to call them, rr -'anwhile, the accused came there and stopped him in a fit of an; -=r mood and stated that there is no need to invite anybody as nobc dy happened I t' ta. \ 2 ETD,J Crl.R.C. No.2223 ol 2010 to visit his wife after her delivery at the hospital, for which the deceased did not care the words of the accused and tried to call his relatives over phone. Due to which, the accused grew wild, picked up a stick and beat on the head of the deceased, and in the meanwhile, PW.1, wife of the deceased tried to rescue her husband from the hands of accused, as a result of it, she received injury on her right hand elbow and the deceased received injury on his head and collapsed on the floor and started vomiting. lmmediately, the deceased was shifted to a hospital at Nagarkurnool, from there to the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where he died on

02.08.2008 at about 5.30 pm, while undergoing treatment.

5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 1 5 and marked Exs.Pl to P7 and MO1. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D1, a portion of the statement PW.3 under Section 16'1 Cr.P.C., was marked.

6. Based on the evidence and the material on record, the trial court has convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,0001. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred and the appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and J ETD,J 'rl.R.C- No.2223 ol 2010 sentence passed by the trial court, against whic I the present I I i i '. revision case is filed

7. Perused the record

8. The trial court has convicted the accused 1c r the offence under Section 304-ll IPC and sentenced to und< rgo rigorous imprisonment of five years and also to pay fine of Fl .2,0001- vide judgment dated 27 08.2009 in SC No.547 of 2008. The alleged offence occurred in 2008 and the sentence was pass( d in 2009 by the trial court and against the said judgment of c,r nviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred in 2009. The appeli rte court has confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by I re trial court against the petitioner vlde judgment dated 25.102( 10 in Crl.A. No.107 of 2009 against which the present revision ;ase is filed. Since '1 5 years the matter is pending. lt is to be obse .ved that the deceased was the father-in-law of the accused and thr: accused in a fit of anger beat the deceased with a stick. The trial , ourt and the appellate court have rightly held that the accused had ^ r intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, the act ol beating with stick resulted in an injury and the deceased fell down Further, it is pertinipt to take note of the fact that PW.1, who is tr., wife of the deceased and mother-in-law of the accused, has ini:i rlly deposed 4 EfD,J Crl.R.C. No.2223 of 2010 supporting the case of the prosecution and that when she was recalled after a period of four months, she turned hostile and stated that the deceased was suffering with Epilepsy, as such, he fell down and sustained injury. The trial court and the appellate court have ignored the evidence of PW.1 in the second instance holding that she must have turned hostile just because the accused is her son-in- law. The strength of the relationships also cannot be ignored However, it is only based on the evidence that the courts can look into the guilt of the accused whether established or not. ln the present case, both the courts have held that the offence under Section 304-ll IPC has been established. Section 304-ll IPC reads as follows: "304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished wrth imprisonment for life, or tmprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shatl also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to tetr years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily iniury as is likely to cause death." . -r 5FSflrElErEFIE!.qz ./ .a I I : 5 ETD,J I rt.R.C. No.2223 ot 2010

9. The offence under Section 304-ll IPC is prrishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the r ase and that considering the fact borne out by the record that the il :cused is the son-in-law of the deceased and was 30 years of age it i on the date of offence, and novr he must be aged about 4Z years € nd running a family on whom the entire family would be depen<l )nt, taking a Ienient vrew, the conviction is upheld, but the sentenc: is converted into that of payment of only fine of Rs.5,000/-.

10. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allc wed in part, confirming the conviction recorded against the grr,titioner, but converting the sentence to that of payment of fine of Rs; 5,000/-. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall sta- l closed. //TRUE COPY// IJ )/- T. VIJAY KUMAR ] REGISTRAR =PUTY G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahaboo nagar (FTC) 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurno6l.(with reco.r s if any) 3. The Judicial N4agistrate of First Clais, Nagarkurnool. 4. The Superintendent, Cherlapally Central Frison at Moutrt Ali. 5. The Station House Officer, Tadoor potice Station, Ivlahab robnagar District. 6. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court foi tne Sta e of Telangana at 7. One CC to Sri M. praveen Kumar, Advocate 8 Kam/sa t- lti,,v/'' Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies [oPUC] '(, \ ' i4t.:iru5 : \r \ ",- .;(, rr'iC HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 ORDER GRLRC.No.2223 of 2010 !i i t I I I I ! I I I t. I l I l l I i l I l I THE CRLRC IS ALLOWED IN PART I )