The High Court · 2025

,/ Counsel for the Appellants : Sri G R Sudhakar Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.lol OF 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.01.2OI2 in S.C.No.226 of 2OtO, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapeta. The appellant/A- | to A-7 were convicted for the offence under Section 304-11 r /w. 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. P.W. 1 , who is the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint on 16.02.2010 at 11:3O a.m. stating that his brother (deceased) namely Jonnalagadda Satheesh went to the place behind the house of P.W. 1 where construction was going on. The appellants were present there and they attacked the deceased and started beating him with hands and pushed him on to the ground. The deceased fell down facing sky and was struggling. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Sai Manasa Nursing Home/hospital of P.W.7 where he was examined. P.W.7 found that the deceased was brought dead and accordingly, issued Ex.P.3 certificate. In the said certificate, 2 the reason give,n was that the deceased was pushed try known persons in the village on the same day.

4. On the bzrsis of the complaint, the Police registered a case under Section 304-II r lw. 34 of IPC and started investigation' During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses which is Ex.P.7. Thereafter, having concluded the inquest proceedings, which is trx.P.6, the body was sent for post mortem examination. P.W.14 conducted post mortem examinirtion and found the follorving injury: "A fracture measuring about 4"x2"x1" c.m. on the middle of the occipital bone with irregular edges."

5. Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was Iiled against the 7 appellants who were named in the FIR as assailants. Learned Sessions Judge concluded that death was on account of acts of the appellants, however, it was unintentiona-I. Accordingly, conviction was recorded.

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellalts wotLld submit that case against the appellants was fabricated. I:a fact, the actual incident was suppressed. -t Though at the initial stage, it was stated that the appellants have pushed the deceased on to the ground, however skull fracture was found during post mortem examination. Initially, the deceased was taken to P.W.7 /Doctor who did not speak about any fracture injuries. It is not explained by the prosecution as to how fractures happened when the deceased was pushed by the appellants. In fact, P.W. 1 admitted that there were around 20 people involved in the scuffle. Further, learned senior counsel argued that post mortem examination report was also fabricated and the same is evident from the date and time mentioned on the lst and Sth paragraphs of the post mortem examination report. Since alleged death was not explained by the prosecution as the result of aly kind ofacts by the appellants, the question of convicting the appellalts under Section 304-II of IPC does not arise. 7 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that though severa-l persons have attacked or were involved in the scuffle, seven persons were specifically named, as such, the conviction by the learned Sessions Judge was proper. However, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor failed to explain as to why at the initial stage when P.W.7 examined the deceased, no fracture was found. i l i I 1 4

8. The presence of the appellants at the scene and the fight that took place, is not disputed. It is not the case of the appellants that. they were falsely implicated. They have admitted their presence at the scene. It is a case of scuffle among severa-l villages and defense is that appellants never assaulted the de.cea.sed. 9- As seen fr,rm the complaint, P.Ws.3 and 5 turned hostile to the prosecution case.

10. It was argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that after one year, compensation for d eath of deceased was claim.ed on the ground of natural death and the Sarpanch was examined as D.W. 1. The claim was made long after the death and the complaint/Ex.P.l that was filed. Any such averment of natural death made in the death claim application will not have any bearing on the initial complaint, eye witness account and the investigation done. However, none of the witnesses have specifically stated anything about the deceased being beaten on the head or any deliberate acts of the appellants resulting in the injury to the head. The fact remains that there was scuffle and the appellants were involvect in the said scuffle. According to the eye witness account, the deceased was beaten, thereafter, he fell down. In the said 5 circumstances, conviction under Section 3O4-lI r /w.34 of IpC is set aside. However, appellants are convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentence is reduced to period already undergone. The fine component remains unaltered. 1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JO N REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, '1 . The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate. Kodad 3. The Station House Officer, Kodad Police Statron, Nalgonda District 4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri G R Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies ADl(gh w HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.101 of 2012 I r E STAIG 1\ q o t ) C I 3 1 J|\t'i 2[?5 .t I )Es PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA w