The High Court · 2025

State of Telanggng, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana 5nd the State of Andhra piadesh, Hyd ' ...Respondent / Gomplainant Counsel for the Appellants Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor r' ;5 l:., GRIMINAL APPEF,L N0: 1621 OF 2017 Appeal undr:r Serction 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. agarnst the Judgment dated 28-07- 2017 made in S.C No '10 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Diskict and Sessions Judge, Medal: District at Sangareddy- Between: Beqari Anjaiah @ Anjaneyulu, S/o. Anthaiah, Aged irbout Ill years, Occ Student, R, o L.lttarpally Village, Sanga Reddy Mar dal, Ivledak District, Telangana {:itate ...Appellant / ,Accused No 3 AND The State or Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hvdeiabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent i Complainant *.'-* Counsel for the A ppellant Sri K Amarnath Reddy Counsel for the R,rspondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodlir Additional Public Prosecutc,r The Court deliverr:d the following Common Judgment : d .-}{. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL ''' CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1362 of 2OLZ and, L62]- of 2Ot7 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Criminal Appeal No.1362 of 2Ot7 is fiied by appellants lAt and. A2 and cr1.A.No. 162 I of 2ol7 is hled by A3, questioning their conviction under Section 3O2 r l.w 34 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.10 of 2015, dated

28.07 .2017 passed by the principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

2. Since both the appeals are arising out of same judgment of trial qr{ Court, both tf e appeals are disposed off by way of this Common Judgr-nent.

3. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2 in Criminal Appeal No.1362 of 2017, Sri K.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A3 in Criminal Appeal No.162 1 of 2Ot7.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1, who is the defacto complainant went to the police station on 27.O2.2OL4 at 9.O0 p.m. In the said complaint, he narrated that he came to know that his brother-in-law namely Mohd. Bikku Sab (deceased) was injured by some persons. Immediately, P.W. 1 went to the spot and found that the deceased was ,*' }...]! z bleeding. Whr:rL qtr':stioned by P.W. 1, the deceased itrform':d that A1, A2 and 43 beat hirr sutce he was objecting to take away the nt,:em branches. Since the decr:asecl questioned them, A1 beat him wi-h stick on his head arrd .A2 and A.l abrrsed in fi1thy language and also assaultecl with hands.

5. The de,:e ast:tl was taken to the hospital. Wh il e undergoing treatment, he died :n 07.O3.2014 at Gandhi Hospital. Thc body was sent for postmorter ex.a.mination. P.W.12 conducted aulopsy and following injuries were foun,1 on the body of the deceased: "1,. "C" stap,:1 surgical craniotomy wound pre{ient o: the skull on right with sutt rres On cut section evidence of riglrt ten Lporal parietal cranrotomy n rted with evidence of subdural he::latoma and subarachnoid t erLorrhage noted on right cerebral he:nispheres. r:'r;l 2 "C" shaperl surgical craniotomy wound pres3nt orr the scalp on left side with s utures. On cut section evidence left pariet.al craniotomy. noted with t vid t:nce of subdural hematoma anql subarachnoid hemorrhage noled.n left cerebral hemisphere.

3. Scalp conttrsion present diffursely all over th: sczr\r. 4. Contus ior. on left side of the neck 10 x 1O cr. note'd 5. About i0i) mg of blood clot present in the bar;e of tre brain." P.W.12 concl'rded that the death was on accortnt of 'complications of head injury"

6. The polic,: filrrd charge sheet against three appellants for the offence under Section .i02 r/w 34 of IPC. I I t i i '!t{r*r 3

7. The evidence against the appellants is that of p.W.3 and p.W.S. P.w- 1 filed complaint a,d he stated that he came to know about the dece.dfsed bding beaten by some persons. However, the name of p.W.S was not mentioned in the complaint. p.w.5 was cited as an eye witness to the incident. P.w.5 stated that he was working uncler the deceased and on the, date of the incident, he saw the appellants beating from a distance. B. In the cross-examination, p.w.5 admitted that the scene of offence was at a distance of 2 kms from where he was standing. The version given by P.w.5 cannot be believed firstly for the reason of his name not J-9\ ' ? being mentioneu in the complaint that he had witnessecl the incident and secondly, it is not possible for a person to view what is happening at a distance of 2 kms. The incident happened around 7.O0 p.m, which would be dark in any season.

9. According to the evidence of P.W. 1, he went to the scene and found the deceased lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. The deceased informed him that it was the appellants 1 to 3 who assaulted him and abused him. Specifically, it was narrated that Al was the person who beat the deceased with sticks, while ,A.2 and A3 assaulted the deceased with fists. F r.rl,, 4 1 O. The inc,rr Lsis.t ency in the case of the prose :tttion is that the statement of t re rleceased was not recorded by -he pr:1ice officials. Though the de,;eased was undergoing treatment for a period of nearly eight days in bt tur::n 27.O2.2OI4 and 07.03 2O14, h'ru'ever, no attempts werc made by a n1' of the police ofhcials of the concer:red 1l< '1ice station to record his staiemert. No reasons are also given as to "rrhy no attempt was made to record his statement. 1 1 . The deatl rva s after a period of eight days of the :rlleged assault' The opinion c f l-he Doctor is that the death vlas ol-r account of complications of the head injury. It was not statec specificaily by the r.,l' treating Doctot tha t the death was a direct consequ cllccr 'lf thc injuries that were re< eived on the said day. What was nreant by the 'Complications' wtr; not clearly stated by the Doctot ncir ,:licited by the prosecution du:inq the course of trial. The 'Complications' is vague word to be stated. 'C,rmplication' could be due to vilrlous factors. The prosecution or ght to have proved conclusively thzLt t1're death was a direct consequ( nc.' of the injuries.

12. Keeping i r vi,:r,r, that the said infirmities, it cannot b,:r said that the death which c cctrrred eight days after the incident, citn be directly attributed to tire aileged assault. Accordingly, conviction under Section 3O2 rlw 34 of iPtl is set aside against the appellants. Llowever, A1 is 5 convicted under section 3o4-I of Ipc and sentenced to trndergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 42 and A3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 326 IPC.

13. Since the appellants/A1 to A3 were released on bail, the concerned court is directed to cause appearance ofthe appellants and send them to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.p.C.

14. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed ra' '., \. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S.S,C.S.M. SARMA INT REGISTRAR J CTION OFFICER 1 The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy (with records, if any)

2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak Diskict at Sangareddy 3. The Station House Officer, Sangareddy Rural pS, Sangareddy 4. The Superintendent, Cherlapally Jail, Ranga Reddy District 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison Kandi, Sangareddy District. 6- Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 8. One CC to Sri K Amarnath Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies VA/gh o n' ,: I : HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 , €: n coMMoN JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.1362 & 1621 ot 2017 u,t i\i C o [1 i?, ?U:5 * ) , ,,o.rC.j: :==r"' PARTLY AL.LOWING BOTH THE CRLA'rs I I I I i i I i /