Criminal Appeal No. 988 of 2017 · The High Court · 2025

1. Parepalli Bheemaiah, S/o. Cheekati, Age:30 years, Mannewar, Coolie. 2. Parepalli Srinivas, S/o. Cheekati, Age.32 years, Mannewar, Coolie. (Both are R/o. Jogapur Village, Nennel Mandal) ...Respondents/Accused Counsel for the Appellant: Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Surender Reddy Criminal Appeal No.75 ot 2015 Appeal under Section 37 4(2) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled O9-12-2O14 passed in S.C.No.428 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Adilabad. Between: Parepalli Bheemaiah, S/o Cheekati, Age: 30 years, Convict prisoner No.6710, Central Prison, Warangal. I AND ...Appellant The State of Telan Hyderabad for the gana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondent l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(CRLAMP. NO: 113 OF 2015) 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment dated 09.12.2014 passed in S.C No. 428 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad pending disposal of Criminal Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. E. Venkata Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SIJRENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINALAPPEAL Nos.988 OF 2017 and 75 OF 2O15 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per llon'ble Sri Ju.stice K.Surender) Criminal appeal No.988 of 2OL7 is frled by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.12.2014 in S.C.No.428 of 2013, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, wherein the respondents/accused Nos.l ald 2 stere acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPCJ and accused No.l was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015 is liled by appellant/accused No.l aggrieved by the judgment dated

09.12.2014 in S.C.No.428 of 2O13, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, for convicting him for the offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State in Crl.A.No.9BB of 2017 and 2 respondent-State in Cr1.A.No.75 of 2015 and learned counsel for respondent in Crl.A.No.988 of 2017.

3. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and .2 are own brothers. The deceased namely Gundla Swamy and the accused belong to the same communit5r and all of them are residents of Jogapur Village. PW. 1 is the wife of the deceased and PWs.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. The deceased admonished the daughter of the sister-in-law of accused No. 1, when she went into the forest area along with her boy friend, for which accused No.1 bore a grudge against the deceased and used to abuse and threaten the deceased.

4. On the night of 05.06.2013, the deceased slept at the house of PW.6. The next day morning i.e., 06.06.2013, at 04:00 a.m., the deceased, PWs.S,6 and LWs.7 to 11 (not examined) along with accused No.2 went to the forest for hunting and hunted a forest pig.

5. Accused No.l came to know that a forest pig was hunted and for the reason of not sharing the meat of forest pig, there was altercation in between the accused No.1 and the deceased. Accused No.l then decided to kill the '----rFI:-- -1 3 deceased and accordingly, while the deceased was going back, he beat the deceased on his head with an axe with an intent to kill him. The deceased died on the spot. l,earned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of eye

6. witnesses, however, found that the act of hitting the deceased on his head had taken place pursuant to a quarrel in between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. Accordingly, the attack was not pre-mediated and was on the spur of the moment.

7. Admittedly, the alleged attack by accused No. I was on the head of the deceased. Only for the reason of accused No.2 being the brother of accused No.1, would not entail accused No.2 for conviction. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused No.2. Further, on the facts, since the attack was pursuant to a quarrel that took place in between the accused No. 1 and the deceased regarding sharing of meat of a forest pig that was hunted, learned Sessions Judge's finding that the act of culpable homicide did not amount to murder cannot be found fault with. 4 In cases of acquittal, the interference by the appellate

8. Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddg u. State of Andhra Pradesht held as follows: "15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquitta) is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. It can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by t}le trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court. However, if the High Court decided to depart from t]:e conclusions reached by the triai court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state t}le reasons as to why it finds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortiJied by the findings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt; and (iii) the tria-l court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses- The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear ieasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given by the trial court-"

9. The Honble Supreme Court in Babu u. State of Rerala2 held as follows: I (2006) 11 scc 444 2 cd.e,No.1o47o9, dated 1 1.08.2010 5 "L2. ln State of Rajasthal v. Naresh @ Ram Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again examined the earlier judgments of this Court and laid down that arr "order of acquittal should not be lightly ioterfered with even if the court believes that there is some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused."

13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Ors. l(2OO9l 4 SCC 2711, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. The circumstances includes: i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice; iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court; vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. " i I ) i 6

10. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 1 1 . It is informed by learned Public Prosecutor that accused No. t had undergone the sentence of seven years of imprisonment as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge. As such, the cause in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015 does not survive.

72. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.988 of 2017 is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2O15 is dispbsed off. I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR D PUTY REGISTRAR .-.---4 ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Sessions Judge at Adilabad. (with records, if any) 2. The Judrcial First Class Magistrate, Chennur. 3. The Superintendent, Central prison, Warangal. 4. The Station House Officer, Nennel police Station, Adilabad District. 5' Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 7. One CC to Mr, E Venkata Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 8. Two CD Copies I kam/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.988 of 2017 &75 o12015 HT t ( 4 j0 o o o 1 a PA fr 2W o f ,t 64 16+r;. I I DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.988 ot 2017 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.75 ot 2015 0 A5 a dt1 I