The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant Sri P Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following Judgment : {l I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE IIONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1242 OF 20t7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) l. This appeal is frled by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 2O.04.2017, tn S.C.No.3Ol of 2O11, passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 3O2 and 3O7 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard iearned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, iearned Additional public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

3. The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for committing murder of his wife, and also injuring PW3, his brother-in-1aw, by hitting them with a DCM Van, after an altercation with deceased and pW3.

4. The version of the eye witnesses is that, on 19.11.2010, PWs. 1 to 3, 5, 6, and others went to attend. the l0rh day funeral ceremony of the wife of pW3 at Ratnam Basthi, Moosarambagh. At around 09.OO p.M., appellant went there and came back after consuming alcohol. Under the influence l of alcohol, appellant picked up quarrel with PW3 and questioned him as to why he was not sending his wife. Then PW3 stated that the appellant was harassing his sister (deceased) i.e., wife of appellant. Heated argument took place in between deceased and PW3. The other relatives who were present, i.e., PWs.l, 2., 5, 6, and others intervened and separated both of them. Then the appellant got into the DCM Van, drove the vehicle and dashed against PW3, and his wife (Mogulamma). Both PW3 and deceased were taken to the hospital. PW3 sustained grievous injuries and initially, he was treated at Osmania General Hospital, and thereafter at NIMS Hospital, where he was an in-patient for more than two weeks.

5. On the basis of complaint given by PW 1 , Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the appellant for committing murder of his wife under Section 302 of IPC and also Section 307 of IPC for attempting murder of PW3.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that scene of offence is different from what was projected during the course of trial. According to the witnesses, incident happened in front of the house of PWl, where the l0th day ceremony was going on. However, as evident from Ex. D2, \ 3 which is the statement made by PW3 before the Police, the incident happened at Moosarambagh cross road, which is admittedly at the distance of I k.m. from the house. The said discrepancv in the scene of offence would have an impact on the finding of learned Sessions Judge. When the prosecution fails to prove the exact place, where the incident had taken place, the benefit of doubt has to be extended.

7. PWs. t to 3, 5, and 6 are the eye witnesses to the incident. A1I ol them are close relatives. Appellant is brother- in-law of PW3. The narration of eye witnesses is consistent. All of them have stated that appellant was drunk and entered into an altercation with PW3, questioning him as to why he was not sending the deceased, who is the wife of appellant, along with the appellant. Thereafter, he started the DCM Van, and hit both the deceased and PW3.

8. Considering the version of eye witnesses, the reason for the appellant driving the DCM Van and hitting his wife and PW3, is the refusal by PW3 to send the deceased along with the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was fully drunk and his act of driving a DCM Van and hitting the deceased and PW3 was pursuant to the quarrel that took place, when appellant was in a drunken condition. I I 4

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virend.er u. State of Haryanal, held as follows: Inference of vicarious liabitity _ _ In order to invoke principle of joint liability in commission of criminal act as laid down in Section 34, prosecution should show that criminal act in question was done by one of the accused person in furtherance of common intention of all. Common intention may be through a pre_ arranged plan, or it may be generated just priJr to the incident. Common intention denotes action in concert, and a prior meeting of minds. The acts maybe different, and may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. euestion as to whether there is any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facls and circumstances of each case. Totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether accused persons had the common intention to commit the offence.

10. Learned counsel submits that appellant is now under the treatment for paralysis, he is in the house and his parents have to take care of him. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in Gurtnukh Singh a. State of Haryana2, held that Court has to be cautious, while sentencing the accused. The factors regarding the manner in which the incident has taken place and mitigating circumstances also have to be looked into, before awarding the appropriate sentence. 1 1. It is not disputed that appeliant is suffering from paralysis ald cannot move without assistance of a person. In t lzozo; z scc zoo 'z zoos 1ts; scc ols ) fact, the SI of Malakpet has provided information to the Public Prosecutor, which was filed before the Court' In the said information, it was mentioned, that the appellant was undergoing treatment in Nizam Institute of Medica-l Science, for paralysis. Photographs of the appellant were also filed by the SI of Police showing that the appellant is bed ridden and immobile.

12. Having considered the relevant factors, the conviction I l under Section 302 of IPC is set aside, however, the appellant is convicted under Section 304-II of IPC. Keeping in view, the ailment of the appellant and also the sentence of 5% years of imprisonment undergone by him, we deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly-ailowed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Sd/- C.V, MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' \ ECTION OFFICER To, I i

1. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad (with records, if any)

2. The Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad 4. The Station House Officer, Malakpet PS, Hyderabad District 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies Vtugh *rv I I I *-.r HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1242 of 2017 k o (j 1H E sr4 Ie: 2 4 tiAB m5 z t l)ts.: ^a.. ! t PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA [9 , I