The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State ofAndhra Pradesh. ... Res po nd e nUC o m pla ina nt Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodta, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E,V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1548 OF 2018 JUDGMENTl t;1"1 tlr117 hla .\ri .lrrtit:t' K..\ur,'nlt'rt

1. The Appcal is liled bl the appellant/ accused, aggrlevcd bv the judgment ,1:rtcd 26.05.2016 in S.C.No.BO of 20 12, on the file of XII Acl(liti,)nal District & Scssions .Judge, Vikartrbad, Ranga Redd-r District. 'lhe appcllant wzrs convicl,ed for the offence punisii.r,,rirl. under Sectior-r 302 ol IPC and st:tttencoc-l lo undergo life Lmpt-isorttnent.

2. He:rrcl 1,'rrr rrt-cl senior c:otrnsr'l for the :rPpell:rnt eri'ril Sri Arun Kumal I)ocila. learned Aclclirional Public Prosecr.tlor ior respondent Stzrte.

3. P.W.1 is thc dcfacto complatt-tant and tlre u'iIi: ol Pichakuntla trlirliaiiilr (decc'ascd). Accorciit-rg to hcr, ihe appellant ar-rcl Lr,:r- husband hacl acquainLat-rce. A qrr:rrtel ensued betnccr-r thcrn for repa1'mcnt of debt ol Rs.5OO/-. 'i'he said inciclent Look place near thc crernatioa of one Chukkamma. 'l'lre dcceasecl informecl P.W.1 ar-rd tl-re son of P.W.2 about tl-rc zrltercation. All three of them, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2, and th.: deccased, \\'ent to the house of the appcllant and questiorLe'c1 1-rim. The appellant became filrious and i - stablicd thc deceascd in the throat, resulting in a deep wound and consequent death. According to p.W. 11 ltine post mortem Doclor, the death \,tras on account of hypovolemic shock caused by a cut injury to the neck.

4. l-earned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appcilar-rt would submit that the case would fa11 within four cor'ners of Section 304-ll of IPC. The attack took place r,vhen P.W. l, P.W.2, and the deceased went to the house of the appcllant and confronted him. There was only one injury inflicted on the neck and given the manner in which the injurl. s,as i:aused, it cannot be said that the act \\.as premcditated or the: appellar-rt had any intention to murder the deceased.

5. I-earned counscl relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmichand vs. State of Maharashtrar, u,hercin the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whlle dealing nith a case of drunken branrl. held that the attack on the deceased u,as neitl'Ler intentional nor premeditated and converted the conviction under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC. He erlso relied on judgment of this Court in Md.Shafiuddin vs. Statc of Telangana2, u,herein the Coordinate Bench found that tht: clr:ceased and the witnesses had gone to the house of the '(2011) 2 scc 128 2 crl.A. No.91 of 2015 :. ll 'i i appellant and a quarrcl ensued, the convictiorl \vould be under Section 304-ll of IIrC and not under Section 3O2 of lPC. The relevant paragr:rph reads as under: i ".........\ ,e are also of the lirm vie'"v, firstly, for the reason thaL therc rvas onll' one solital injury on the body of thc deceased. Secondly, the place of incidenl r,r,as the house of the appellant/ accused where th<: deceased had come and picked up a quarrel ald light r'r,ith the appellant/accused and thirdll', there was no established motive or intention on the part oi the appellant/ accused to eliminate or kill the decease d. Thus, in the ligl-rt of Lhe judgments quotcd above, th<: conviction of the appcllan t/ accu sed unclcr Sectior-r 302 of iPC arvarded by the trial Court is not proper. legal and justified ancl the same \\rarrants interference. [t is ordered accorclir-rglr'."

6. It is not r: ispulecl tl'rat P.Ws. l, 2, zrnrl thc clccc:Lsccl l'cr-rt to thc house ol thc appellant and confror-rtc'd hrm. Durir"rg Ll-re said confrontation. t1-re appellernt stabbcd t}-re clcccased oncc in the tl-rroat. Tl're said ir-rcident clearlr, ir-rdicates t}-rat thr:re was 1-lo premeditation ln thc part of the appellant to murdcr tlle deceased. There is neither motive nor anlr inlent on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. +

7. llelying on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court ancl tl-ris Court, and in view of the present tacts and cir<:lrmstarrces of the case, rve deem it appropriate to convert thr: conviction under Section 3O2 of tpC to Section 304_lI of IpC. Thc appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by hinr. B. r\ccordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allou,ed. Since tht: appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand car-rcelled. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIViSA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. (with records, if anY)

2. The Judicial First Class l\4agistrate, Pargi at Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison. Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District' 4. The Station House Officer, Pargi Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Advocate TOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies Kam/gh W HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1548 of 2018 TFiE SLq /€. i{o 3 0 APB 2025 '9 t tt- .-r-aTCH eO * THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED s $t: rI