Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2016 · Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Judgment

(Per Hon'ble S, Justlce N.Tukaramji) We have heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learnerl counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.'l and 2 and tr4r.Syed Yasar lr/amoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent- State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2016 in S.C.No.125 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabatl.

3. The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused Nos.1 and 2'), who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'l.P C') Accused No.1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 l.P C and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 Lp.C. and 2 PSK,J & NTR,J Crl A No. 529 of2016 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six \ months. Accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 l.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, with a fine of Rs.5,000/, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On 03.02.2013 at l1:00 hours, the Sub-lnspector of Police, Morthad/PW-17, received Police ReporUEx.P-1 stating that on the same day, at about 9:30 Afitl, lhe deiacto complainanVPW-1, along with one Renjerla Sayanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), had returned from the agricultural field. While parking their vehicle in front of PW-1's house, they noticed a gathering in front of a Dhaba house. From the crowd, one Mahesh called them over and informed them that, based on some loathsome information given by accused No.2, his father abused him. Meanwhile, accused No.2 arrived and assaulted Mahesh. When the deiacto complainant and the deceased intervened, the accused No.2 warned them not to get involved. However, the deceased questioned him about beating Mahesh and asked accused No.2 to maintain quiet conduct. 3 I'SK.J & N'TIT.J Crl.A No. 529of2016 Accused No.2 then mentioned a complaint lodged by the deceased to the Superintendent of Police against them and boasted that the Police would not take any action against him At this point, accused No.1 entered the Dhaba, returned with two knives, and before the de-facto complainant could alert the deceased, accused No.1 attacked the deceased. Although the deceased took a cart peg and stood his ground, accused No.1 managed to stab him in the stomach. ln response, the deceased struck accused No.1 on the head vvith the cart peg. As accused No.'l advanced,lhe deJacto complainant grabbed the cart peg and tried to hit accused No.'l on the hr:ad, but accused No.'1 stabbed him on the left side of the ribs and shoulder, causing injuries. Meanwhile, accused No.2 threw a boulder at the de-facfo complainant with the intent to kill, but he managed to escape. Subsequently, accused No.2 took the knife from his elder brother/accused No.1, and charged at them with the intent to kill. At that moment, villagers gathered, causing both accused to flee. The incident was witnessed by Dayanand/pW-4 and Yugandhar/DW-2. The injured were taken to the hospital, where authorities informed that the deceased was brought in dead. lt was also mentioned that, two years prior, as the deceased married =l 4 PSK,J & NTR,J Crl.A No 529 ol20l6 Shailaja, who belonged to another caste, lead the ac,cused to .1\ develop grudge against him and to commit the offence

5. Upon the first information reporUEx.p-1, crime was registered under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of l.p.C. and after due investigation, the lnvestigating OfficeripW-18 laid charge-

6. The jurisdictional Magistrate, after due proceedings, committed the case, and the Sessions Division, Nizamabad, assigned it to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, for adjudication. After examining the accused, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 307 of the l.P.C. against accused No.1, and under Sections 323 and 307 of the l.P.C. against accused No.2. As the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial proceeded. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 18 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-26 and M.Os.1 to 7. ln defence, DWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-17 were marked. After considering the material on record and concluding that the offences committed by the'accused were established beyond reasonable I .ai 5 I'SK.J & NI'R.J Crl A No. 529 of20l6 doubt, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned earlier

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. Even if the prosecution version is accepted as it is, the incident amounts to a free fight, and the seqr:ence of events indicates that the deceased was the aggressor. Furthermore, the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 establishes that PW-l initially attacked the accused Nos.1 and 2 with a cart peg. The,accused, despite reaching the Police Station to lodge a report, found that the Police did not receive it and neglected to take appropriate action Additionally, the appellants suffered injuries and underwent treatment at the Government Hospital. The cross-examination of the lnvestigating Officer reveals that the location from which the eye witness (PW-4) claimed to have witnessed the incident was obstructed by a wall, making it impossible to see the occurrence There is also no material supporting the alleged motive in the police report; even otherwise, the disputes referred to could serve as a basis for false implication. Moreover, the ove( acts attributed to tht appellants do not constitute the essential ingredients of the -I I /\ 6 PSK,J & NTR,J Crl.A No. 529 of20l6 charges. The trial Court further disregarded the defence established during the cross-examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the authority of Sta/,n ys. Stafe represe nted by the lnspector of Policet, submitting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the materials, held that circumstances must be carefully examined and, having regard to the facts, modified the conviction to one under Section 304 Part I of the l.P.C. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for reconsideration of the evidence on record and for the acquittal of the appellants.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the ocular evidence establishes the attack by the appellants and the infliction of fatal injuries on the deceased. The fact that accused No.1 came armed with knives and stabbed the deceased demonstrates the intention to cause death. As accused Nos.1 and 2 together attempted to kill the de-facto complainant, the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused. Therefore, the conclusions recorded by the trial Court are proper and deserve affirmation ' 1ZOZO1 S Supreme Court Cases 524 I I 7 PSK,J & NTR,J Crl A No 529of20i6

9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record '10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on the direct evidence of the injured witness (PW-1) and the eyewitness (PW-4). ln response, the defence examined another eyewitness, referred to in the First lnformation Statement (Ex.P-l), as DW-2. The deJacto complainant, PW-1, is the star witness, having been present throughout the incident and having suffered injuries during the occurrence. lt is a settled position that the evidence of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal, as the injuries confirm their presence at the scene and, being the victim, they are less likely to give false testimony or implicate someone other than the real assailant

11. Regarding the occurrence, PW-1, the injured witness, narrated the circumstances as stated in the first information statement. He recounted that on 03.02.2013 at about 9:30 AM, the deceased struck accused No.1 on the head urith a cart peg, following which accused No.1 stabbed the deceased in the left side with a knife, causing the deceased to fall. Accused No.1 then approached PW-1 with two knives. PW-1 picked up the cart pegl which had fallen from the deceased's hands, to defend himself, but F 8 PSK.J & NTR,J Crl A No. 529 of20l6 accused No.1 stabbed him on the left flank and above the left elbow. Accused No.2 then brought a boulder and threw it at PW-1, but PW-1 managed to move aside and avoid injury. Subsequently, accused No.2 took a knife from accused No.1 and advanced towards PW-'l , but as the public gathered, both accused fled

12. The PW-4, the eyewitness, deposed that on 03.02.2013 at about 9:30 AM, near the chicken centre-cum-Dhaba hotel, he saw the accused assaulting Mahesh and stopped to observe. Mahesh called the deceased and PW-1. After a verbal exchange, accused No.'l entered the chicken centre, returned with two knives, and the deceased picked up a cart peg. ln the meantime, accused No.1 stabbed the deceased near the waist. After being stabbed, the deceased struck accused No.1 on the head with the cart peg and then collapsed. Accused No.1 then moved towards PW-1 and stabbed him on the left flank and left arm. PW-'l responded by striking accused No.1 on the left hand with the cart peg. Accused No.2 brought a stone and threw it at PW-1, but missed. Accused No.2, stating that the deceased had died and that PW-1 should also be killed, took a knife from accused No.'l and advanced towards PW-1, but both accused fled as the public gathered. I I PSK,J & NI'II,J CrlANo 529 ot20l6

13. The other eyewitness referred to in the first information statement was examined by the defence as DW-2. According to his version, at about 8:30 AM, while proceeding in his auto and reaching the chicken centre, he found a bullock cart obstructing his vehicle He observed PW-1 and the deceased removing cart pegs from the cart and assaulting the accused. As a result, both accused sustained head injuries and accused No.2 fell to the ground. He further stated that the accused did not possess any weapons and that the deceased and PW-1 left the scene.

14. ln the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, except for suggestions, no other material aspect was elicited in cross-examination. Notably, it was suggested that the father of the deceased (PW-3) aspired to the post of Sarpanch against the elder brother of the accused, Sanjeev. Fearing defeat, PW-'1 , the deceased, ancl others allegedly went in a group to eliminate Sanjeev, and in that context, when accused No.1 approached, the deceased struck him with a cart peg. Later, accused No.2 arrived and was also slruck. Thereafter, Sanjeev's supporters arrived, an altercation ensued, and pW-1 sustained injuries, but it was suggested that accused Nos.1 and 2 did not cause these injuries. ;t 10 PSK,J & N'I'R Crl.A No 529 of20l6

15. A careful reading of the above evidence establishes that on

03.02.2013 at about 9:30 AM, at the Chicken Centre-cum-Dhaba Hotel (the scene of occurrence), an incident took place involving the deceased, PW-1, and accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 4 regarding the manner of occurrence and the overt acts of the accused is consistent. The mediator of the scene (PW-10) and the entries in the mediator's report and rough sketch (Exs.P-8 and P-9) support the witnesses' version regarding the location of the incident.

16. The doctor (PW-14) who treated PW-1 deposed that on

03.02.2013 at 10:40 PM, PW-1 presented at the hospital with two injuries: a laceration on the right elbow and a stab wound on the left lower chest. He treated PW-1 for haemothorax until 08.02.2013 and issued the lnjury Certificate (Ex.P-l4). PW-l5, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, stated that the deceased died due lo intra- peritoneal bleeding caused by a stab injury consistent with a knife like M.O.1 , as detailed in the Post Mortem Examination Report (Ex.P-15). The cross-examination of these medical witnesses did not yield any facts favourable to the accused. This medical evidence aligns with the statements of PWs 1 and 4 regarding the injuries caused by accused No.1 and the death ofthe deceased. u PSK,J & N'IR,J Crl.ANo 529 of20l6

17. Other prosecution witnesses, including the wife of the deceased (PW-2), the father of the deceased (PV/-3), a resident of a neighbouring village (PW-5), and the inquest mediator (PW-g), also corroborate the fact of the deceased's,death due to a stab rnJury

18. The facts regarding the injuries sustained by PW-1 and the death of the deceased in the incident caused by accused No.1 are clearly established.

19. The next aspect for consideration is whether the proved overt acts of the accused satisfy the requirements under Sections 302 and 307 of the lndian Penal Code.

20. The prosecution relied on direct evidenr:e to prove the charges; therefore, proof of motive is not significant in this case. 21 . The facts and circumstances narrated by the injured and eyewitnesses indicate that the occurrence happerred in the heat of the moment. Their testimonies regarding the secquence of events and the escalation suggest that the incident was not premeditated. However, the weapon used by accused No.1 -a knife- demonstrates both knowledge and intention, as it is common knowledge that \ 1 t2 PSK,J & NTII,J Crl.A No. 529 of20l6 using a knife to inflict injury may result in death. ln this case, the knife was used to stab the victim in the back, resulting in intraperitoneal bleeding. Thus, it is clear that accused No. 1 intended to cause injury and knew that such an act could likely result in death. However, the evidence does not establish a clear intention to cause death, as the knife wound was not inflicted on a vital part of the body. Nevertheless, the internal bleeding led to the victim's death. Therefore, the evidence shows that, without premeditated intention, accused No.1 , with knowledge, caused bodily injury with a knife that was likely to cause death. Accordingly, the offence committed by accused No.1 falls within the parameters of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and his act against the deceased is an offence under Section 304 Part I of the l.p.C. Furthermore, considering the injuries caused by accused No.1 to PW-l , the overt act and evidence satisfy the requirements for an offence under Section 326 of the l.P.C.

22. Additionally, the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 clearly shows that although accused No.2 committed certain acts, he did not cause any injury to PW-1 or the deceased. in the heat of the quarrel throwing a boulder or snatching a knife to stab PW-1 , cannot be stretched to conclude that these were attempts to commit murder. t3 PS(.J&NtR.J CrlANo 529 of20l6

23. For the reasons stated above, the conviction of accused No.1 deserves modification from Sections 302 and 307 l.P.C. to Sections 304 Part land 326 l.P.C., respectively, and accusr:d No.2 is entitled to acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C

24. For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Appeal is partly \ t allowed. Appellant No.2/accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 l.P.C. Further, the conviction of appellant No.1/accused No.1 under Sections 302 and 307 l.P.C. is set aside. lnstead, as he is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part I and 326 l.P.C., conviction is recorded accordingly. Consequently, he is sentenced to urrdergo rigorous imprisonment for a period seven years and t<> pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I l.P.C. Additionally, appellant No.liaccused No.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.5,0001, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 326 l.p.C. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 is d .t I To, 14 PSK,J & Crl A No. 529 of20l6 entitled to set off the period of detention already undergone against the sentence imposed by this Court As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications if any, stands closed Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad. (wit 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Nizamabad. 4. The Station House Officer, Ivlorthad Police Station, Nizamabad Division. 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at rds, if any) Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Mr. C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL i. :.*et!*gtaL.w,gtti. HIGH GOURT DATED:01 t0512025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.529 of 2016 J s14 f, o o /. t g1 UJ I'l ztE 'SIra :i-- 0uH -;l' (\ t' a +<, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL /2 /-z // r r'r' ,//