Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. G. JAYA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARUN KUMAR DODLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE H(INOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDE]R AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOP,A:IL CIIIIMINAL APPEAL No.3O49 of 2018 JUDGMENT: lt)er Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender, This Or.Lrninal Appeal is frled by the appellant/ r<:cused No.1, ag5giev't,c by the judgment dated 14.11.:2( 18, in S.C.No.2B o. 12015, on the file of the I Additional I)is;t..ir:t and Sessions JrLc[ge, Nalgonda, whereby the appellant / rrc.cused No.l was c(,n!i(:ted for the offence punishable un,1er Section 302 of the Indi:rrr Penal Code (for short IPC').

2. Heard le'rrned counsel for the appellant / acr:ust,d No.1 and Sri A:u.rr Kumar Dodla, learned Adclitio.-rai public Prosecutor frrr r espondent-State. Perused the record

3. The rrppe'lant herein, accused No.1, and his wife. zrccused No.2, were triec br the offences punishable under St:ct_i<.rs 302 and 307 rezr.d $'ith Section 34 of IPC. Howeverr, the tearned Sessions J-rcge frund the appellant/ accused No.1 grril[z f tr the offence under rlt:ction 302 of IPC, while giving the ben,:llt of doubt to a<:ctrse d No.2. 2

4. PW. 1 is tine de facto complainant and the son of Pannala Sathaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased')' He lodged a Telugu written complaint on 28.04'2013 at 08'15 P'M'' stating that PWs.2, 3, and the deceased went to their fields on receiving information that the brother of the deceased was axing the fence around their land. As soon as they reached the spot, they questioned accused No' 1 as to why he was cutting the fence. Then, the appellant attacked the deceased with a sickle/veta kodavali (MO1). PW.3 tried to stop him, however' he received injuries on his hands. Accused No'2, who was also present there, attacked PW.2 by catching hold of her hair' On hearing the shoutings of PW.1 and others, two persons' namely P.Kashamma (LW.2) and B.Yadamma (LW'B), who were in the adjacent fie1d came there and gave water to the deceased' called an ambulance and shifted them to the hospital' On the way to the hospital, the deceased died'

5. PW.3 was also examined by PW 11' According to PW'11' PW.3 received the following injunes: "1) Lacerated wound on the right waist joint' 2xl cm' right waist joint, simple in nature, caused by blunt otrject. 2l Lacerated wound on the left arm, length 2x1 cm'' left arm, simple in nature, caused by blunt object' 3 Ex.],12 is the wound certificate issued by pW 1 t T-re al: tr.e injuries are possible by MO.1..

6. The ir:qr:e st proceedings were conducted thereal [er and the body'^/Ers jont for post-mortem examination. I,\.\,.(:) found the follou'i tp ir I ,r rries: '11 Irrcised wound 3x2x2 inches right parictal alez o; -he skull with fracture skuil parietal bonr: witl rn rsrsive clots seen over the brain. 2) Irciserl wound 3xlx1 left four arm palmar aspect. ll) [,irce'ation 3x2x2 both great toe offeet. 4) Irrcirrc.d wound l/2xl/2x1/2 inches ovcr ri11ht. dcrsurr l-rand with mud arid sald seen all over rhe bc <11 . A:crrrrl ng to PW.9: ..The injuries number olle, t.vo ar:d fc,ru. are caused by sharp weapon, r_.,umtrer th-er i,; caused by blunt object, all the abcve in.;uri"; rre anti mortem in nafure. The ab, vc injr.rries arc possible w.ith MO.1.-,

7. The . nvestigating Officer arrested the appellan: and seized MO. I rrlong with other objects and sent thern fc,r FSL examinatior . FS l. report was given, opining that ihe trlood stains on it :n r f r: s.2 to 6 are of human origin, ltut th e t lood stain on iten lrlo 7 could not be determined.

8. Learne d [),:s;sions Judge examined the eye_vritn :s,ses, PWs.l to 3, ancl also other w.itnesses, pws.4 to 13. i\4airr1.r on 4 .4.. l1 the basis of the evidence of the eye-witness account, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty, while extending the benefit of doubt to accused No.2, who is the wife of the appellant.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that apart from the interested witnesses, testimony i.e., the evidence of pWs. 1 to 3, there is no other evidence to support the version of the prosecution case that it was the appellant who hacked the deceased with MO.1. Further, PW.3 was not hospitalized, and was only treated as an out-patient, according to PW. 11. Further, according to pW.11, PW.3 was not accompanied by the police to the hospital, as such, it cannot be said that PWs.l to 3 were eye-witnesses to the incident. Further, the learned counsel submits that injuries caused to PW.3 would be possible by coming into contact with a hard surface, as admitted by PW. 1 1.

10. On the other hald, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit that there is clear evidence about the appellant attacking the deceased with MO. 1. Only for the reason that PWs.l to 3 are close relatives of the deceased, that by itself would not entitle the defence to claim that the evidence 5 of PWs.1 to 3 should be disbelieved. The complaint weis filed by PW. 1, whicl rvas dralted by PW.4 to the dictation of P!'/.5. The compiaint rva:; filed at 8.15 P.M. The incident ha-ppened €round

03.00 P.[,t. Tf e body was shifted to the hospital wl,ere the deceased r,:,s rft:ciared dead. PW.3 was also treated irr l-he very same hospil -rl 'or lhe injuries.

11. The algunrent of the learned counsel for thr: appellant, that the apprt:llant was falsely implicated becarse ,rf the disputes le [rr/r)f n the family, cannot be acceptec . B c :h the deceased rrnC the appellant are own brothers. Arlmilted y, there was a dis1,u'e legarding the boundaries of the 1and. Thr r:ase of the proser:u'-rol is that on the date of the inciden,. while the appellant was; !rying to remove the boundary f,:nci ng, the deceased rven1, t,) the fields and tried to stop the apPe,lzrr.t, and that is wherL r-lre appellant attacked the deceas,--d. $/l-rt,r: PW.3 tried to inten,e ne, he also got injured. The sequen:e r,arrated by the evt:-r'zi1.r rt:s ses is believable and is also in. tzrndt ,rr with the docurr.errts i.e., the medical record and also the FIFI, which corroboratr: lht version of PWs.1 to 3. There are at,sohrtely no grounds to int,trfere with the findings of the learnr:d Siessions Judge. 7 I ./\ ,i{tai. l'-:f: 'r, ii; -':-1"r- ' {--T-., 6

12. The frght between the deceased and the appellant, who are own brothers is admitted. The frght was with regard to the boundaries and the fencing of their agricultural iand. On the date of the incident, even according to the witnesses, while the appellant was trying to remove the fencing, PWs.1 to 3 and the deceased went there. There was a fight between them, and in the course of the said frght, the assault took place. Admittedly, the incident happened in a spur of the moment when there was a fight between the deceased and the appellant. In the said circumstances, the exception 4 of Section 30O of IPC comes to the rescue of the appellant.

13. It is relevant to refer to Exception 4 to Section 3O0 of IPC, which reads as under: "Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is commltted without premeditation in a sudden frght in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrei and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusua-l manner."

14. As seen from the medical record filed by the appellant, the appellant is suffering from paralysis and is being treated in the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad. However, keeping in view the manner in which the incident has taken place, the conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC is converted to 7 Section 3 0.1 I'art-II of IPC, and the appellant is s;ent,:nced to undergo imprjsonment for a period of eight (8) yearr;.

15. Acccrdir g1v, this Criminal Appeal is partl1, allowed. Miscellanec,r-r s Petitions pending, if any, sha'1 sranc closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. 1 KRISHNA KUMAR JOITIT REGISTRAR t.\ , decrroru oFFrcER To

1. The I Adrlition:rl District and Sessions Judge, Nalgoncla ( tvitt e:ords ) 2. The Jud cial Fir;t Class [Vlagistrate, Devarakonda , Nalgonda ) strict. 3. The lnsp,erlc,r of Police, Gurrampodu Police Station, Nal,loncia District. 4. The Super nl€ nCent, Central Prison at Cherlapally, Rangtl Red<ly District ( By Special [4e sse n qer)

5. The Supr:ri,1te r(lent, Central Prison, Warangal, Warangal Dist I By Speed Post )

6. Two CCs to lvlc itional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sl.ate of Telangarra at lll,derabad (OUT)

7. One CC lo Srrt. G JAYA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC B. Two CD Cc,pi€ s Kul/gh ,z HIGH COURT OATEDi24l0412025 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.:1049 ot 2018 {iffrliI ;.ll 'l\ o \ 1 I ,i\N 7[?5 7_ c) .L * i.'.(-) j I I I , l PARTLY ALJ,O\\'I\(; 'I'] IE CRL.APPEAL. \,\