The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at I ...RespondenU Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 389( 1 ) of Cr.lP.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of seqtence passed in S.C.No.205 of 2018 dated: 13-1 1-20'19 on the file lll Additr$nal District and Sessions Judge at Asifabad in respect of petitioner/Aland lto release the petitioner/A1 on bail pending Criminal Appeal No.1 164 of 2019 I I I i 't, lA NO: 1 OF 2O2O Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner (A-3) in SC No 205/2018 dt: 1311112019 on the file of the Court of lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Asifabad and direct to release the petitioner on bail for a period of 3 months (three months ) pending CrlAppeal NO 116412019 before this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor ' Bail Slip No.l : The Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the^ HighCourtdated 26.11.2019 in l.A. No. 1of 2019 in Cd A. No-.1049 ot2019. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: '1049 OF 2019 Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 13.'1 1.2019 passed in S.C. No. 2O5 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the lll Additronal District & Sessions Judge at Asifabad, Asifabad District. Between: Kommera Laxman, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. SCCL Employee, R/o. Chandravelli Village, Bellampally Mandal, Mancherial District (erstwhile Adilabad District ) (A4) ...AppellanUAccused No.4 AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. K V Subba Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: ;;- I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI THE HONOURABLE SRI il,STIC AND I CE K.SURENDER E E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMIN AL APPEAL Nos. 164 &,1049 0F 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per H)n ble Sri Justice K.Swender) 1. Crl.A.No.l164 of 2019 is freferred CrI.A.No.1049 of 2Ol9 is preferrQd by A-4 by A-1 to A-3, and

2. Since both the APPeals are l-rled questioning the conviction in S.C.No'205 of 2018, on the frle of III Additional District & Sessions Judge at A$ifabad, both the appeals are considered and disposed of by wpy of this common judgment'

3. Heard learned counsel ifor the appellants and the learned Additional Public Proseoutor for respondent-State'

4. P.W.1 is the wife of Dasha:|atham (deceased)' According to her, on 03.08.2O17, at about l0 a.m', the deceased, along with his brother Ankaiah (not lxamined), went to the MRO o{fice in connection with a la{rd issue ' In the evening at about 6 p.m., the deceased retYrned home and informed her ith dire consequences rn that A-4 threatened him d" I connection with land disPutes I h etween the decease d's family and the family of A-4. Around d p.m., the deceascd went out. P.W. 1, daughter, Svrathi Priya/1W.2, arld son, Sai Preetham 2 (not examined), were in the house. They heard the deceased shouting and went out. They found the deceased lying on the road with bleeding injuries in front of the house of P.W.4. A-1 to A-3 were near the deceased. A-1 was armed with a knife, A-2 and A-3 with an axe and an iron rod, respectively. When P.W.l questioned him, the deceased stated that A-I stabbed him. Immediately, Kotaiah/P.W.6 arrived at the scene, and he was also assaulted. The deceased was then taken to the hospital and treated by P.W. 14. The deceased died on 03.08.2017.

5. P.W.14 examined P.W.6 and found the follou,ing rnj unes '1. A laceration measr:ring 2.3cm., x0.5 cm., on the right side of the chest. 2. A laceration measuring 2cfir., x 0.5 cm., on the left forearm. 3. Fracture of left ulna."

6. Postmortem was conducted by P.W. 14 on the deceased, and P.W. 14 found the following injuries: "1.A deep laceration over left chest latera_lly | ,/z x 2 inches.

2. Left lung was lacerated measuring I /. x 3 inches. , 3

3. Left side heart was lacqrated measuring I x 2 inches." 7 . According to P.W. 14, the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock, followed bi a stab injury over the left chest.

8. P.W.l lodged a complainf at 8 a.m. ot 04.08.2017' narrating the incident and st{ting that the death of the i deceased occurred at the hospit{l. g. The Investigating Officer/P.W.15 took up investigation 'I aJter the crime was registered. He went to the scene and conducted the scene of offence qanchnama. Inquest was also held. Thereafter, the post+ortem was conducted on

05.08.2O17, and A-1 to A-3 werF arrested. At their instance, M.Os.1O, 11, and 12were seize{. The bloodstained shirt and trouser of A-2 were also seizedl. During the confessions of A-1 to A-3, it was revealed tha$ A-4 also had a role to play. Accordingly, A-4 was also arrayled as an accused along with I A- I to A-3.

10. karned counsel appearin[ on behalf of the appellants would submit that the only ele-witness to the incident is -,?^ 4 P.W.4. According to him, A-1 stabbed the deceased with a knife, and when he approached A-1 and the deceased after hearing a quarrel, A-2 and A-3 came there. P.W.4 called Kotaiah/P.W.6. When P.W.6 arrived, he was also attacked by A-1 to A-3. However, P.W.4 did not witness A-1 to A-3 assaulting P.W.6. 1 1. According to P.W.6, there was a quarrel between the deceased's family and the family of the accused. In the MRO office, the deceased rvas threatened by A-2 and A-4. On the same day, in the night, the deceased called P.W.6 and informed him that A-1, along with one Annam Rakesh (not examined), carne on a motorcycle and kicked him. The deceased lodged a complaint against them. Thereafter, P.W.6 received a phone call from P.W.4 informing P.W.6 that A- 1 stabbed the deceased. When he came to the scene, according to P.W.6, A-2 hacked him with an axe on his left hand. A 1 stabbed him on his right side below the chest, and A-3 beat him with an iron rod on his back. P.W.3 came to the scene and tried to stop the accused from attacking P.W.6_ Immediatel,y, both the deceased and P.W.6 were taken in an auto to the Police Station and from there to the Government hospital at Bellampally. I I : i I : l I I -7 r- 5 t2. According to the learned gounsel, P.W.6 was not at the no eye-lritness account as to who scene, and there is i attacked the deceased. P.W.4 attributed overt acts onlY to A- 1. Counsel firrther submits attacked the deceased, the sam ltrat, even admitting that A- I d would not fall under Section 300 of IPC but would fall under $ection 3O4-I of IPC. I

15. Learned counsel relied on] the judgment of the Hon'trle Supreme Court in Stalin vs.i State tepresented bY the Inspector of Policer. The levant paragraphs read as under: - the law laid down more particularly this Court in the aforesaid e decisions on the single is required to be considered der Section 3O2 [PC or anv n, who is an eyewitness to ning, deposed that when the a beer to two persons who became angry and told the P beer to oLrttown people and hereafter the problem started ped took out the knife and the medical evidence, the g injuries: 'Applying decisions, injury and tlle facts'on hand, i whether the case would faII other lesser offence. P\il3 - Ne the incident right from ttre be deceased - Kalidas served came from outside, the ac deceased why he is giving morl not giving to local people and tJ and in that scuffle the accui stabbed from behind. From deceased sustained the followin "External Injuries: A stab wound about 3 x 1.5 cFn and 8 cm deep with clean edges present over the back od the right side corresponding to b li vertebera present. Worfnd edges swollen, read with adherent blood." IO. As per Exception IV to homicide is not murder ifl premeditation in a sudden figllt Section 3OO IPC, culpablc it is committed without in the heat of passion upon ' (2020) 9 scc 524 l l : I i I 6 a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IpC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 3O2 IPC shall not be attracted. 1 I . Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on tJ:e vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likelv to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 3O4 Part I of the IpC arld not under Section 3O4 Part Il of the IPC." 14 l-earned counsel zrlso relied on the judgment in Deepak vs. State of Uttar pradesh2, wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court found that since the assault on the deceased was pursuant to a quarrel, the conviction was altered from Section 3O2 of IPC to Section 3O4-II of IPC.

15. On the other hand, the learned Additional public Prosecutor fairly admits that the allegation of stabbing is against A I and A 4 was not present at the scene. (2018) B scc 228 '? 7

16. As seen from the evidencp of P.W'4, he only speaks about the presence of A-2 and A;3 at the scene, and that too after the assault by A- I on thE deceased. P'W' l/wife and P.W.2/daughter of the deceased arrived at ttre scene after the incident of assault by A-1. Accprding to P'W'4, A-2 and A-3 came out of the house after heaping the quarrel between A-1 and the deceased.

11. The injury was inflicted b, A-1. It was one stab injury were disputes between the on the chest. AdmittedlY, th deceased's familY and the fam of the accused regarding a land issue. Witnesses have ated that on the morning of the said daY, there was Thereafter, an altercation a uarrel in the MRO ofhce enlsued in the evening, and consequently, there was an ass{ult by A-1' Xg The Hon ble Supreme Colrrt, h Stalin's case (supra) ' injury on a vital Part of the held that where there was one body, in such circumstances, e conviction was altered to Section 304-l of IPC. !9 A-2 and A-3 were convictqd with an aid of Section 34 ol IPC. An accused can be convi4ted with an aid of Section 34 of IPC only if the prosecutign proves that the act \'t'as 8 committed in furtherance of a common intention. In pursuance of such common intention, the accused must have participated in the act for the Court to infer that he shared the common intention. According to p.W.4, A_2 and A_3 arrived at the scene after p.W.4 had separated the deceased during the quarrel, and by that time, A_ t had already inflicted the knife injury on the chest. Considering the evidence of P.W.4 that both A-2 and. A-3 went there only after hearing the quarrel and that the stabbing had already taken place, thc questiorr of them sharing a common intention with A-1 does not arise.

20. P.W.6 statcd that there was an attack by A_l to A_3. A-l stabbed him on thc teft side below the chest and A_2 beat him with an iron rod on his b;rck. When the injuries received by P.W.6 are looked into, thcre is a laceration on the right side of the chest, r.vhich is simple in nature and laceration on the left forearm, which is also simple. The grievous injury was a fracture to the left ulna. During the course of cross_ examinatior], p.W. l4 admitted that p.W.6 underwent treatment in Singarcni hospital where the X_ray was taken. In the X-rzr_r,, fracture injur-1, r.r,as found. No Doctor from singareni hospitar was exami,ed. It is not known whether I i i j I i I i I I I i i ! i j I I _..4 the injury or fracture sustaine{ by p.W.6 was received on the date of the incident or prior to it. 1 2t- In view of the above disQussion, the conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC r/w.34 of [pC against A-1 to A_3 is set aside. However, co4victed under Section 304-I to undergo 7 years of simpliciter alrd sentenced A-1 is imprisonment.

22. The conviction of A-1 and iA-2 under Section 307 of IpC for injuring P.W.6 is set aside.i However, A-1 and A-2 are convicted for the offence undel Sectio n 324 r /w.34 of IpC and senrenced to undergo one yfar imprisonment.

25. Since there is no evidencq against A-4, he is acquitted ol all the charges.

24. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No. 1:,164 of 2019 is partly allowed and Crl.A.No.tO49 of 2019 is alQwed t //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I ThelllAdditronalDistrictandSessionlJudge,atAsifabad.(Withrecords,if anY) tne JuOiciat First Class magistrate, B{lhmpallpy, Mancherial District erstwhrle Adilabad District. The Station House Officer. Thallaguru+la Police Station' The Superintendent district Prison, Adllabad. Two Cis to the Public Prosecutor, St{te of Telangana' High Court Buildings' at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, fdvocate [OPUC] one CC to Sri. K V Subba Reddy, {rdvocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies w 2 3 4 5 tl' 7 8. DL/gh /a S /6 22 AIJB 26 \i, '-'_t,,'- :\$ I I .,/./ ,.' I I I I I I i l I , l i I I ! I , I i ] I ! : : j j HIGH COURT DATED:.291O412025 COMIIIiON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.1164 & 1049 ot 2019 Cr!.A. No. 1164 of 2019 is partly allowed And Crl.A. No. 1049 of 2019 is allowed. \\ ccflaA \k .nfte