The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRt A. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 686 0F 2017 Appeal under Section 37 4(2) of Cr p.C against the judgment dated 07 '03'2017 passed in s.c.No.248'or zolo on-tnl rte or the court of the rV Additional District and Sessions .f rOge, Wa,rntal Between: '"" Edla Rajailu, s/o Raiaiah, Aged 3g years, occ Agricurture, R/o Ramakistapur virage, Tekumatla Mandal, Jaya Shankar Bhupalpalli Oi"iri"f ' ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 Note: The ApperanuAccused No.3 was directed to be rereased on bair bv the ?;oX?r. * Hish courr dated 20.12.2o22 i" r.n.n".r- ii zoii-tiZi.i.r.r..ide."r AND The State of relangana, Represented by public prosecutor, High court of Jr.rdicature at Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT I i l l Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M. A. K. MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent; SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSEGUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:485 oF 2017 Appeal under Section 37 4(2) ot Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 07.03.2017 passed in S.C.No.24B of 2010 on the file of the court of the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. Between: Edla Cheralu, S/o.Rajaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ramakrishnapur, Chityal mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally district (Warangal) Note: The AppellanUAccused No.4 was directed to be released on bail by the order of High Court dated 15.12.2022 in l.A.No.1 ot 2022 in Crl.A.No.485 of 2017. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.4 AND The State Of Telangana, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Note: The AppellanUAccused No.6 was directed to be released on bail by the order of High Court dated 12.12.2022 in l.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.3023 of 2017. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3023 OF 20'|8 Appeal filed under Section 374(2) o't Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 07.03.2017 passed in S.C No. 248 o'f 2010 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. Between: Nampally Sambaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Ramakistapur Village, Tekumatla Mandal, Warangal District ... APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.6 I l; AND The State of Telangana Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of 1'elangana And the state of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. S. MADHAVI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODDLA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT , I THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER AND THI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KI'MAR Crl.A.Nos.488, 549, 686. 485 OF 2Ol7 & 3023 OF 2018 COMMON WDGMENjf: (per Hon'ble Si Justice K.Surender) 1. CrI.A.No.48S of 2017 is filed by A-1, Crl.A.No.S49 of 2Ol7 is filed by A-2 & A-5, Crl.A.No.6B6 of 2OI7 is frled by A-3, Cr1.A.No.485 of 2Ol7 is filed by A-4 and Cr1.A.No.3O23 of 2018 is filed by .A-6, questioning their conviction, for the offences under Sections I48, 3O2, 3O7, 324 r/w. 149 of IPC in S.C.No.248 of 2O1O, on the hle IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal

2. Since the Appeals are hled by the appellants/A-l to 4,-6 questioning the same judgment, all the appellants a-re heard together and disposed off by way of this common judgment.

3. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed and Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A- 1 to A-6 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-5 are the sons of A-2, A-3 ald A-4 are younger brothers of A-2. A-6 2 is the close' friend of the accused. P.W.l, P.W.8 and the deceased are the sons of P.W.2 and P.W.s.

5. P.W. 1, P.W.4, P.W.8 and the deceased were having boundary dirsputes with one Atcha Rajaiah. The di:;putes were referred to Lhe elders. A-2 to A-4 acted as elders on behalf of Atcha Rajaiah and some others acted as elders on behalf of P.Ws.1, 4, I atd the deceased. The elders gave their decision in favour of Att:ha Bakkaiah (P.W.s). A-2, A-3 and l. 5 insisted that their wc,rd should prevail. There were quarrels in between the two groups and criminal cases were registered against each other.

6. The de,:eased was running a fertllizer shop orr the main road of the village. On O2.O8.2OO9 at about 9:OO re.m., when P.W.l, P.W.8i ald the deceased were in the shop, [r.W.6 and P.W.7 came there to purchase the seeds. A-5, while prassing on the road abused P.W. l, P.W.8 and the deceased serying that entire road in front of the shop is being used tor parking bullock carts causing nuisance and threatened to see their end. On hearing the hurling of abuses, P.W.2/mother of P.W. 1, P.W.8 and the deceased came there. Seeing that A-l to A-5, holding axes, knife and sticks were coming to the shop, p.W.2 warned P.W. I P.W.S and the deceased to run a\.r,ay. The 3 , accused initially attacked P.W.8 \Mith axes on his head, as a result of which P.W.S fell down. P.W. 1 and the deceased tried to run away, but the deceased was attacked with axes on his head by A-1, A-3 and A-4 resulting in instantaneous death of Sagar/deceased. P.W. 1 was beaten with a stick.

7. P.W.5 called for Ambulance to take the deceased and P.W.8 to the hospital at Parkal. The deceased died on the way to hospital. P.W.S was shifted to Parkal hospital initiatly arrd thereafter to MGM hospital.

8. P.W. 1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P. I with the Police/P.W.22, Chityal. The Police registered a case and issued FIR/Ex.P.22.

9. P.W.26/Inspector of Police took up investigation ald went to the scene of offence, examined P.W. 16 and recorded his statement. P.W.26 prepa-red scene of offence panchnama and obtained photographs of the scene in the presence of P.W. 16 and another, ald seized M.Os. 1 to 14. iO. P.W.26 went to Parkarl Government Hospital where inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 17 and another. Ex.P.34 is inquest panchanama dated 02.08.2008. The dead body was sent for l i l1 4 post mortem examination. P.W.23/Post mortem Doctor conducted post mortem and gave report which is Ex.F'.29. 1 1. P.W.8 rvho was injured in the attack was referred to MGM hospital. Dr,Sheeresha who treated P.W.S and issued injury certificate/E-x.30 was not examined. P.W.24/Chi<:f Medical Officer was examined, who identified the signature of Dr.Sheereshzr, on Ex.P.3O.

12. P.W.25/Asst. Professor of MGM hospital examined P.W.8 ard gave trezrtment. Ex.P.31 is the case sheet of P.W,B.

13. P.W.26 examined P.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 5, recolded their statements ald seized M.Os. 12, 13 and 14 uncler seizure panchnama/ Ex.P.35.

14. On l2.t)8.2OO8, A-1 to A-5 were arrested at f)r,varakapet cross roads and their confession statements were re,corded in the presencr: of P.W.20 and L.W.23, alrd weaoons were recovered un,ler Ex.P.22. On 18.08.2008, A-6 was alrested and his confessior was recorded in the presence of L.W.24 and P.W.21. Ex.P.22 is the confession panchnarna. .M.O.1 was recovered from the possession of A-6 under recovery panchnama E)x.P.35. 5

15. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.l to 26 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P.36 and M.Os. 1 to 14. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked.

16. The evidence of the prosecution, relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the appellants, is that of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 and the corroborating medical evidence.

17. The defence of the appellants is one of denial. According to appellants, they were falsely implicated on account of P.W. 1 and his family members holding grudge against them. ..It is evident from the record that P.W. 1, the deceased and P.W.8 attacked the accused on earlier occasions.

18. The argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellalts is as under:- False implication of all the appellarrts is i. evident from the fact that P,W.8 stated to the Doctor, at the earliest point of time that he was attacked by the neighbours. ii. Keeping in view the earlier grudges, P.W.2fmother of P.Ws.1 and 8, was introduced as an eye-witness, who falsely stated about her presence when the incident happened. l: 6 iii. The recovered axe from A-3, though subjected to FSL examination, no blood was found on it.

19. Alternatively, learned counsel argued that appr:L1ants were not convictr:cl under Section 3O2 r/w.149 of IPC, hnding common object of all the accused, as such, the C,curt has to look into overt acts attributed to each of ttLr: accused individually and not collectively. All the villagers met at 9:30 a.m. in the morning, in the normal course. In the said circumstarces, it cannot be said that the appellants had any kind of premeditation or intention to commit the mr-rrder of the deceased. On account of previous disputes amongst them, it can be inferred that the incident of attack, happerLed at the spur of the moment. Conviction if any, carr onI1. be under Section 304-lI of IPC ald not under Section 3O2 of IPC.

20. Learnerl counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl. in Nallabothu Venkaiah vs. State of A.P.r , wherein it q.'a s held that though there was al all:gation of unlaw{ul assembly, individual overt acts attribut.ed to the accused can be relied upon to draw inference or partir:ipation of accused. Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Cor-Lrt in Bala Seetharamaiah vs. Perike S.RAo And ' (2002) 7 scc lu It Othersz, wherein a similar yiew was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

21. P.W. 1, P.W.8 and the deceased are brothers and P.W.2 and P.W.S are their parents. On the date of incident at 9:30 a.m., A-5 initially went to the scene of offence which was in front of the fertilizer shop being run by P.W. 1. A-5 started abusing P.Ws. 1 and 8 for the reason of blocking the entire road with bullock carts and altercation ensued. Immediately, other accused came there.

22. The overt acts attributed by P.W. 1 is that A-1, A-3 and A-4 beat his elder brother/P.W.8 on the head and A-2 stabbed P.W.S with a knife on the back and hands.

23. The overt acts attributed by P.W.2 is that A-1 to A-5 beat her son/P.W.8 on the head. A-1 axed the deceased/Sagar in the middle of the head, A-3 and A-4 axed the deceased and A-5 beat P.W. 1 with a stick on his back and A-6 beat the deceased with a stick.

24. According to P.W.8, he was initially attacked by A-1, A-2 A-3 and A-4, wherein A-4 was holding axe, A-2 was holding a knife and A-5 arrived holding a stick. A-1 to A-5 beat P.W.8 as 'z izoo+; + scc ssz i I l 8 a result of which, he fell down. Then they chasr:d the deceased and inflicted injuries on him.

25. TLLe, post mortem Doctor/P.W.23 conducted autopsy over the dea<l body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1 1I. 111 1V Injury on the left parietal regior-r measuring6x3inches. Injury on the right temporal region approx6x3x3inches. Injury on the left temporal region approx 3x3x3inches. Injury on occipital region 1O x l) x 3 inches.

26. P.W.,23 opined that the injuries were possible with an axe. During cross examination, P.W.23 admitted that there would be cut and laceration injuries, if a person is attacked with an axe. 27 . Insofar as evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 8 is r:oncerned, A- 1 , A-3 and A-4 were holding axes. They initially a.ttacked p.W.B and thereafter the deceased. The injuries found during post mortem examination clearly indicate four injuries that were inflicted on the deceased exposing the brainL matter and meninges. 9

28. The argument of the learned counsel that attack was not premeditated or intentional, and the offence being punishable under Section 304-II of IPC cannot be accepted. The intention or knowledge to cause death can be assessed and inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular case. [n the present case, axes were held by A-1, A-3 arrd A-4 and they attacked P.W.8 frrst and thereafter the deceased. As already discussed, four injuries were found on the head of the deceased. In the said circumstances, it calnot be said that the accused did not have the knowledge that said injuries would cause death'of the deceased. The intention to camse death, can arise at the moment when the incident happened. It is not necessary to prove that accused were either holding grudges or they had an intent, pursuant to which they have conspired and attacked the person causing his death. In the present case, there was alr altercation at 9:30 a.m. between A-5 and the deceased. Thereafter, other accused came there with axes, knife and stick. From the said acts of the accused, it can be safely inferred that they had come to the place with an intention of causing harm. The manner in which the deceased and P.W.8 were attacked, the intention of the accused is clear. 10

29. Thougtr the appellants were convicted under Section 148 for unlawful assembly, however, conviction was nct recorded under Section 3O2 of IPC with aid of Section 149 of IPC. In the absence of conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC with the aid of Section 149 c'f IPC, the Court can look into individua-l acts of the accused and punish them accordingly.

30. A-1, A-3i and A-4 were holding axes and the said axes were recovered at a later date. The complaint/Ex.P. 1 was lodged immecliately after the incident. There was no . either in lod.ging the complaint or sending the complaint to jurisdictional Magistrate. From the inception of thr: case, it is the version of the prosecution witnesses that A-1, A-3 and A-4 were holding irxes and they have attacked both P.\['.8 and the deceased. llhere is absolutely no ground to disbelieve the evidence of e.ge witnesses.

31. Accordingly, conviction under Sections 302, 32,4 and 148 of IPC is maintained insofar as A-1, A-3 and A-4 are r:oncerned and the convi.ction under Section 307 is hereby set aside.

32. Insofar as A-2, A-5 and A-6, the conviction under Sections 3O2 arrd 307 of IPC are hereby set aside. The conviction under Sections 324 and 148 of IPC are maintained. 1l

33. Accordingly, all the Appeals are partly allowed. //TRUE COPY// sD/-A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA J INT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal. 3. The District Jail, Warangal.(By Speed Post) 4. The Superintendent, Cherlapalli Central Jail. (By Special Messenger) 5. The Superintendent, Warangal Central Prison, Warangal (By Speed Post) 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad[OUT]

7. One CC to Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to Sri M. A. K. Mukheed, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Ms. S.Madhavi, Advocate [OPUC] 1 'l . Two CD Copies HIGH COUR.T DATED:0410212025 E. IAr .+ ). tJ Y COMMON JUDGMENT .: ,) ._),) o t:- 5 \|\rq 26 CRLA.Nos.488, 549, 686, 485 of 2017 And 3023 ot 2018 \: '_/, ",r'1r \.-x r'- -.-.1' .-:-..' ---.: L) )', t n PARTLY ALLOWING ALL THE CRIMINAL APPEALS. ,-. L.h , 9,io*