The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 5 of Limitation Act, praying ttrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tte High Court may be p[as.a to condone the delay of 215 days in filing the present Criminal Appeal li J p".. suih-other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 2OF 2017{CRLAMP. NO: 148 oE 20 't7l Petition under Sec{ion 389(1) of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fibd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of ttre judgnrent dated 27.9.m16 passed in l l I I I I l s'c'No 596 0f 2r113 0n the fire of the rX Additionar District and sessions Judge at Wanaparthy by entarging tne petition"er o;;;i." IA NO: 20F 202A -' " Petition under Section _4g2 of Cr I C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited,.in.support of the;;iii;"", the High Court mav be pteased to receive the medicat dil;; ;.;;i"ils'i; th. petitioner herein in the above LA.No 1t2c2o Cd A.N".toi-or'ioii.rlqrrr'r'v (v lA NO: 2 oF 2021 Petition under Sectio-n of Crl C , praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the'p"tition, the High court may be pleased to receive ther medical ,"p.i,t.tiin"'r"ii.r) showinst'eaamission'i,iir,"p"trii"lr";;'ffi ,r'Jl;:ffi :ffi lX#,Ig:lfJ:ff ::: additionat materiar papers in the t.A.No. I ii [O\ n Crt.A.7O7/2017, in the rnterest of justice. -48-2 lA NO:2 oF 2022 ' Petition under section._3gg(1) of. cr.p.c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affid avit filed in support of the pre_ased, t" iGi;., il 09t1,,_""*! r,";; H f,:it?'.,:ti"Xl:ln..i:".$il":: rmposed in s.c.No 596 of 2013 d"t"iiitsiiol6"on tn. fire of the rX Additionar "" sessions Judge warnapa.t'y, penoingd;;;;;ft main crrA z1z/2017. Counsel for Appellanls : Mr. Raja Gopattavan Tayi Counset for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, oetiii, Additional public prosecutor The Court detiverecl the following: JUOGMENT l L I I THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.7O7 OF 2Ol7 JITDGMENT i (per Hon'bte Sri Justice K.Surender) This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2016 in S.C.No.596 of 2Ot3 on the fiIe of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, convicting the appellants/Al to A4 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC) and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,0OO/- each and in default of paJrment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

2. Heard Mr. Raja Gopallavan Tayi,'learned counsel for the appellants/Al to A3, arrd Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The i:ase of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband, A2 is brother-in-law, A3 is father-in-law and,A4 is the wife of ,{.1 respectively. The appellants/Al to A4 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for z JAK, J Crt.A No.707 of20l7 beating th,: deceased to deatl:r on account of illicit relation in between A'4 (wife of A1) and the deceased. The complaint was filed on 01.09.2013 by PW. 1, who is the wife of the deceased. In the cornplaint lodged at 8:OO A.M., she stated that on previous day at around 1O:30 P.M., A4 called the deceased to her house saying that she was alone. PW. 1 further stated that they had illega1 relationship in between them. The deceased tvent to the house when the appellant/Al, who is husband c,f 44, was not present. When the deceased ald A4 were togethet, the appellants/Al to A3 entered into the house and assaulted the deceased by brirg him to a pole in the house and thereafter, he was thrown on the road. PWs.4 to 6 are the 'rillagers, who witnessed the incident of beating the deceased by A1 to 44. On hearing the hues and cries of the deceased, the PWs.4 to 6 knocked the door of the house of Al and thereafter the appellants dragged the deceased and threw him ou.t of the house. On account of severe injuries, the deceased died on the spot.

4. The Inspector - PW. 17 took up investigation of the case, went to the scene of offence, photographed the scene, dead body and the statements of PWs.1 to 9 and others were recorded at the scene. The inquest proceedings were also 3 JAK, J Crl.A.l{o.707 of20l7 conducted at the scene and theredter the body was sent for the post mortem examinafion to the Civil Hospital, Kollapur. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Sandeep Kumar, who was not examined, however, in his place, pW. 16 _ Dr. M.A. Thaher was examined. pW. 16 marked Ex.p26 which is the post mortem examination of the deceased. According to the opinion given by the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, i.e., Dr. Sandeep Kumar, the deceased died due to multiple organ damage (rapture) leading to profuse internal bleeding and consequent cardiac arrest.

5. The appellants were arrested on 04.O9.2013. They were interrogated and their confession statements were recorded. At the instalce of Al, a cart peg and a nylon rope were recovered from the house of the appellants and bamboo stick was also recovered at the instance of .A4. Having completed the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants/Al to A4. According to the investigating offrcer, the investigation revealed that the deceased was indiscriminately beaten by Bring hirn to a pole in the house oi the appellants since A4 had illicit intimacy with the deceased. After killing the deceased, the dead body was thrown in front of t]le house. JAK' J Crt.A No i07 oJ20l7 4

6. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC' Reliance was mainly placed on ttre evidence of PWs'4 to 6' who were the eye witnesses to the incident and also their names were mentioned in the First Information Report' which was filed by PW.1

7. karned counsel appearing for the appellants/ A1 and A2 would submit that the case was fabricated insofar as the appellants are concerned' The version given by PWs'4 to 6 cannot be l:elieved since they are not neighbours of the house of the appeltants as admitted by them and also as admitted by the investigating officer' No reason has been given as to why the irnmediate neighbours were not examined and if at all the ir:icident was taken Place as sPoken bY the eYe PWs.4 to 6, the Probable witnesses are the witnesses neighbours, but not PWs'4 to 6' counsel for the aPPellants 8. AlternativelY, learned a case of grave and sudden would stLbmit that this is provocati'on. It falls within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC and though the death was homicidal ' it does not amount to murder. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the L i I ,l t 5 JAK, J Ctl.A.No.7q7 of 2017 Honble Supreme in K-M. No:na;ao;ti u. State of Mahsrq.strrrr. [,earned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ninnala Deai o. State of Himqch.o.l Pradeshz. In the said judgment, the Hon,ble Supreme Court was dealing witle a case wherein the deaths were caused by the accused while being deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden provocation. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and the appellalt was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part -I IPC.

9. In the present case, though the immediate neighbours of the house of the appellants were not exarnined, that itsetf cannot form the basis to disbelieve the evidence of pWs.4 to 6. The witnesses - PWs.4 to 6 have stated about the appellants beating the deceased in the house of the appellants. However, all the witnesses have stated that there q,7ss illigif relationship in between A,4 and the deceased.

10. In-the complaint lodged by PW. 1, it was specilically mentioned that in the absence of A1, Al's wife, who is A4, called the deceased and the deceased went' to the house of I 1962 aIR sc 6os 2 2023 Livelaw (SC) 58S 6 JAK J ('rl.A.No.707 of 2017 the appellants at 1O:30 P.M. on 31.08.2013' Thereafter, A1 found A4 in the company of the deceased in the house' Then A1 along with A2 arrd A3 assaulted the deceased and caused injuries to the deceased in the house resulting in death.

11. The .culpable homicide is not a murder under Exception I to Section 3OO IPC, when the offender, whilst deprived of the porver of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to commit an offence amounting to murrler or not, would be a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the circumstances or facts elicited in a particu lar case.

12. k: th.e present case, admittedly, A1 was not present in the hotrse, even according to PW. 1, when the deceased went to the hou.se of the appellants, though he was called by A4. The deceased was beaten by a stick which is normally availab.te in any house in a village. It is not a case that arry preparation was made earlier for causing hr:rt to the deceased. The possibility of the husband - A1 loosing his senses and control on account of seeing ,{4 and the deceased J&J Crl.A-No.707 of20I7 " ' !'": 7 together in his house is enough provocation resulting in A1 and other appellants/A2 a11d A3, who are the in-laws of A1 beating the deceased.

13. In the facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate that the conviction under Section 302 IPC has to be set aside while convicting the appe[ants/A L and A2 under Section 304 Part -I IPC.

14. Accordingly, the Crirninal Appeal is partly allowed' Since the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 3O4 Part I IPC is eight years, which is already undergone by the appellants, tJre appellant/Al shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Miscellaleous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand cancelled. ,ffRUE COPY'I Sd/- K. SRIN |VASARAO EGISTRAR JOINT S TION OFFICER To, 'iir"ttro'run"Jii. [witn 'ecorat) " " 1 The lX Additional District and Sesslons Judge at Wanaparthy' '' A X*;',JIitll"Ulgllf,";ll*l'r",'S3";, tll3l#i;,"r, R R Distrct (Bv speed , ?$:r""" to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at t H:"8t* t?'-:i" Gopalavan ravi' Advocate toPucl 6. Two CD CoPies Njb/gh ,l +* HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.707 of 2017 g STAr6 rY\ t? ( q c -o 0 g J[t', 716 t i ! o ,\ f +/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \r \rr 1