The High Court · 2025

Sri S Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.S 39 0F 2012 JUDGMENT:

1. The Criminal appeal is fited by the appellant_accused questionrng the Judgment dated lg.06.2Ol2 in SC No.230 of 2O71 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, wherein the accused was convicted for the offences under Section 304-II of Indian penal Code (for short "IPC") ancl sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years a:nd also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ , in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of sr-x months.

2. Hearcl Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Redd1,, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the respondent_State and perused the record.

3. The appellant ailegedly beat the deceasect namely Rakesh Singh on the festival day of Holi. According to PWs.12 and 13, who were examined during trial and eye witnesses to the incident, on 20 .O3.2Ol I , the deceased, appellant and several others participated in the Holi festival 2 KS.J Crl.A.No.5 39 of 201 2 -: celebrations. The celebrations were at Dasnapur food factory. A quarrel took place in between Chotu (PW. 1) and the deceased, when PWs.12, 13 and several others were having food and consuming liquor. The quarrel was pacified by the persons who were there, including PWs.12 and 13 and thereafter, they went to bed.

4. PWs. 12, 13, accused and others were sleeping in one room and the deceased Rakesh Singh and some others were sleeping in the other room. The appellant woke up and asked one Chotu as to how he sustained the injuries on his face. The said Chotu informed the appellant that there was av scuffle in between him and the deceased, as such the deceased injured the said Chotu. Then, PW. 12, Chotu and appellant slept. However, at about 01.00 a.m., they woke up and found that the appellant and the deceased were frghting with each other and the appellant beat the deceased with a cricket bat on his head. The deceased fell down and then he was taken to the hospital. Initially, the deceased was treated by PW. 10. J l(s.J Crl.-4.No.539 o[ 2012

5. According to PW.10, on 21.03.2011, he examined the deceased who was on the bed in the ward. The deceased was advised CT scan of brain. The CT scan of brain showed the following injuries

1. Fracture of right greater wing of sphenoid squamous part of right temporal bone, right parietal bone extending into sutures.

2. Right fronto temporal parietal subdural hemorrhage extending into right tentoria-l region causing mass effect and rnidline shift to left side.

3. Left tentorial subdural hemorrhage (mild). 4. Minimal left parietal subdural hemorrhage. 5. Contusions in left frontal lobe and in right lrontal and parietal lobes adjacent to sylvian fissure largest in right temporzrl lobe of 30x25 mm.

6. Diffuse cerebral oederna.

6. Since the injuries were severe and the condition was serious, the deceased was then sent to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment, where the deceased died while undergoing treatment, on 24.03.2OI1. The Post Mortem Examination (PMtr) was conducted on 26.O3.2O11 by PW. 16. PW. 16 found the following injuries 4 KS,/ Crl.A.No.539 of 2012 I . Multiple contused abrasions on the back of the left elbow.

2. Contused abrasions of size 4x4 cms on the left side of chin.

3. Multiple contused abrasions over the back of the right elbow.

4. Diffuse scalp contusion over the right fronto, temporal region and frontal region'

5. Linear fracture of size 8 cms over the right temporal bone.

6. Diffuse sub-dural hemorrhage all over the brain with blood clots. The Post Mortem doctor - PW. 16 gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to head in1ury. 7 . On the basis of the eye witness account and the medical evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant.

8. t earned counsel for the appellant would submit that according to the doctor - PW. 10, who initially treated the deceased, he did not frnd any external injuries' However, during post mortem examination, several injuries were found, which is contrary to what was seen at the earliest 5 KS.J Cr1.,1.No.539 of 2012 point of time i.e., on the date of incident. PW. l0 - doctor, in his cross examinatior-r admitted that the deceased had consumed excess alcohol on the previous day and it was noted that there was :r history of fall and altered sensorium (not conscious). Learned counsel further argued that the death cannot be associated with the alleged incident, since there is contradicting medical evidence.

9. Having gone through the record, PWs. 12 and 13 are the eye witnesses to the incident, who narrated about the quarrel that happencd in between the deceased and appellant on the date of the festival. When all the workers were taking rest in the night, the friend of the appellant namely Chotu ',va s found hurt by the appellant. The appellant questioned Chotu, as to what happenecl and then the said Chotu - PW. 14 informed that it was the deceased who had injured him. Thereafter, the appellant entered into a fight with the deceased and hit him on his head with a cricket bat. according to the eye witness account.

10. The cleceased was initially examined by pW. 10 who found six injuries on account of the assault by the appellalt 6 KS,J Crl.A.No.539 of 201 2 with cricket bat. The prosecution has not given any reasons as to why no external injuries were found by PW.10, however, such injuries were found at the time of post mortem examination.

11. However, the fact remains that at the initia,l stage of treatment, PW. 10 found internal injuries after CT scan was taken. The said injuries were sustained due to the attack on the deceased by the appellalt. The death happened four days after the incident. The prosecution did not come up with specific evidence that the death was direct consequence of the injuries found in the CT scan, which was taken on 2l .O3.2011 . The post mortem doctor - PW. I 6 vaguely stated that the death was on account of head injury. Keeping in view the present facts of the case, the conviction under Section 304-II IPC is set-aside. However, the appellant is convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years. 1 KS,J Crl.A.No.5 39 of 20I 2

12. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. The concerned Magistrate shall summon the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed i/TRUE COPY' A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER The I Addrtronai Sesstot.ts Judge. Adrlabad (wlth records, if any) The Judicral Frrst Class lvlagrstrate. Adilabad The Crrcle lnspector of Police. Adilabad Town, Adilabad District The Superintendent. Central Prrson. Warangal Dlstrict Two CCs to the Publrc Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad IOUT] One CC to Srr S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies I* To, 1 2 3 4 o 7 HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.539 of 2012 ( c) r) \. ),. 1t{e grAle: 0 I ltAfl ?lffi < 6c-..,,-.f "' o .+ + PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA @ ? $ 4 40t