Govind Singh v. State of Chattisgarhz, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, since the occ

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1460 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 377 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment Dated 28.06.2017 passed in S.C.NO. 506 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimangar. Between: The State of Telangana, rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...AppellanUComplainant AND Kommu Anil, S/o. Shyamson, tt/ladiga, SC (converted Christian), R/o. Kisasn Nagar locality, Karimnagar, N/o. Challur Village of Veenkanka Mandal ... Res pondenUAcc used Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy The Court delivered the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR CRIMTNAL APPEALNos. 1029 oF 201 7 &746o oF 2017 COMMO N JUD GMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) 1. Cr1.A.No.1O29 of 2OlZ is preferred by the appellant, questioning his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Crl.A.No. 146O of 2OlT is preferred by the State with a prayer to direct that the appellant sha_ll not be released on pa-role till his natural death, since he is a rowdy sheeter and a menace to the Society. 2. Since both the Appeals arise out of common judgment in S.C.No.5O6 of 2012, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.P.No.7029 of 2OlZ and respondent in Crl.p.No.1 460 of 2017, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for respondent- State.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on Og.O3.2012, at about 7 p.m., P.W. 10 purchased pakodi from p.W.9, who is running a hotei, but P.W. 1O did not make the payment, even though P.W.9 insisted. Then, p.W.B also insisted him to make the payment. Thereafter, an altercation took place 6 between P.W.1O and P'W'B' Since P'W'10 was threatened' he ca11ed the appellant over phone' Appellant came there ald beat P.W.4, who had joined P'W'S and questioned P'W'10 for altercating with P.W.8' Appellalt also beat P'W'8' thereafter' P.W.4 called Jelloji Raju and Jelloji Naresh (deceased) over phone. P.W.4 a-long with the deceased went to Kisan Nagar locality and caught hold of the appellant' While they were to the Police Station, the trying to take the aPPellant appellant took out a knife, which was concealed under the seat of his motorcycle, and stabbed Raju' Naresh' Jalagama Kama],BachuShashiKiran,KolaSrinivas/P.W.4andPasula Vijay/P.W.5. Jelloji Naresh (D'1) died on the spot and Jelloji Raju (D.2) died on the way to hospital, and others r'r'ere taken to the hospital. While undergoing treatment' Janagama Kamal (D.3) died on 09.03.2012, an'd Shashi Kiran (D'4) died on Ol.O4.2Ol2.

5. On receiving the information about D'1 and D'2, P'W'1, who is their mother, along with her brother-in-1aw, Jelloji Thirupati/P.W.2, lodged a complaint with the Police on Og.O3.2Ol2, at about 3:00 a.m. The Police took up investigation, conducted inquest over the dead bodies and obtained post mortem examination report. On 16.03.2012, 7 the appellant was arrested at railway station, Karimnagar. Knife/M.O.15 and motorcycie/M.O.I6 were seized at his instance and accordingly, charge sheet was filed, after concluding investigation.

6. P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Apart from the 4 deceased persons, p.Ws.4 and 5 were a-lso attacked by the appeliant and they received injuries. P.Ws.4 and 5 were treated bv P.W .2 I / Dr.T.Vidyasagar.

7. P.W.4/Srinivas was operated and discharged on 14.O3.2OL2. He received a penetrating injury with jekunal perforation and mesenteric tear into assault, which is grievous in nature. Ex.P. 16 is the medico legal certificate issued by P.W.21.

8. P.W.5/Parsula Vijay was discharged on I 1.a3.2012. He received a stab injury over the right thigh 5 x 4 cms, which is grievous in nature. Ex.p. 17 is the medico legal certificate issued by P.W.21

8. According to P.W.21, he examined arrd performed operation of D.3, namely Kamal, who received the following injuries:- 8 " 1. Stab injury in the abdomen in the left flarrk' 2. Left side of the chest inframmar5r region' 3. Left supra scaPula area. 4. Massive haemothorax. P.W.21 stated that "since condition of D'3/Kama1 was serious, he was operated and left supra scapula wound entering into left effects of plural cavity, 900 ml of blood rvas drained out. Operation was performed and he was put on ventilator with atrophic support. He died on 10'03'2012' Ex.P. 15 is the death certificate issued."

9. P.W.21 also treated D.4, namely Shashi Kirar' He rvas discharged after treatment on 16.03.2012. He received the following injuries: "1. Stab injury right side of the abdomen 6 x 3 x 4 cms with retroperitoneal and ascending colon haemotoma' 2. Exploratory laporotomy conducted on O9'03'2012 at 3 a.m. 3. Large retroperitoneal haemotoma was found through out the lateral wall of ascending colon. 4' Haemotoma of mesentery nearly 5OO ml blood was seen peritoneal cavitY. 5. Intraop blood loss nearly 1.5 ltrs." Since condition of D.4 was serious, he u'as shifted to Hyderabad for further treatment. Ex.P19 is the case sheet. 9 However, while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, D.4 died on O1.04.2012.

10. D.2, narnely Jelloji Raju, who died instantaneously, received the following injuries: "1. Incised injury over the right abdomen measuring 2 x 2 crrt. 2. Small intestine about 10 cms outside body.

3. Inside abdomen huge amount of blood collected. . 4. Skull-N.A.D.

5. Brain-Congested." The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock, haemorrhage, and trauma. Approximate time of death was ll to 22 hours prior to examination. Ex.P.2O is the post mortem examination report dt.09.03.2O12. 1 1. D.1, namely Jelloji Naresh, received the foilowing lnJllrleS: " 1. Incised injury over the left lateral below chin measuring3x2inches. 2. Incised injury left lower part of abdomen measuring 2 x 3 inches.

3. Rupture of the descending colon. 4. Huge blood is present in abdomen cavity.

5. Skull-N.A.D. 10

6. Brain-Congested." The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock, haemorrhage, ald poly trauma. The approximate time of death was L1 to 22 hours prior to examination. trx.P.21 is the port mortem examination report, dt.O9.O3.2Ol2. The Doctor opined that the injuries received by both D.1 and D.2, are possible by knife/M.O.15.

12. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for murdering four persons, considering the evidence of eye witnesses and injured, who are P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7.

13. The argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is two folds:

1. The identity of the appellant was not established by way of Test Identification Parade, as such, the question of conviction does not arise.

2. The incident happened at the spur of the moment. From the events, it can be gathered that the appellant had neither any intention, nor premeditation to cause the death of the deceased. In the absence of both, intention and premeditation, the offence would squarely fall within 304-l IPC or 304-II of IPC and not Section 302 of IPC.

14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

1. Ajmal vs. State of Keralar, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, conviction of the appellants would be under Section 3O4-II of IPC as there is no premeditation to commit murder. In the incident of assault in this case, there was one death and three were injured.

2. Govind Singh vs. State of Chattisgarhz, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, since the occurrence of the incident was sudden, arrd there was no premeditation, the act of the accused would fall under exception 4 of Section 3OO of IPC.

3. Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the evidence on record established that a sudden hght took place between the appellant ald the deceased. There was no I zo22(9) scc766 'z zo19 (17) scc 812 3 2o1B (2) scc 49G t2 evidence to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were with al intention to cause the death of the deceased.

4. Sandhaya Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtraa, '*,herein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Fourth exception to Section 300 of IPC covers the acts done in a sudden fight. In a fight that suddenly takes place, both the parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them started it, but if the other had not aggravated the fight b,y his or,r,n conduct, situation may not have taken a serious turn as it did.

15. The incident, as witnessed by P,Ws.4 ald 5, happened twice. In the first instance, the altercation took place in betu,een rvitnesses, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the appellant. In the second instance, since there was a galata, aJter P.Ws.4 and 5 called the deceased over phone. The deceased persons, along with P.Ws.4 and 5, questioned the appellant, and the appellant beat P.Ws.4 and 5. It is also the case of P,Ws.4 and 5 that the appellant was being taken in an auto to Kisan Nagar, near Subhash Nagar. D.1 to D.4 caught hold of the appellarrt and it was decided that the appellarrt should be o 2006 (4) scc 653 l3 taken to the Police Station. When the deceased started questioning the appellant about the incident of altercation with P.Ws.4 and 5, then the appellant picked up a knife and started stabbing them in a ftetzy. He stabbed a-ll four deceased, and also attacked P.Ws.4 and 5 with a knife ' As four persons died and P.Ws.4 and 5 got already stated, injured.

16. Learned counsel for the appellalt argued that, at the Iirst instance, when the altercation had taken place, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause any injury or harm to any of the witnesses or the deceased' In fact, the appellant was forced into an amto' As such, the appellant apprehended danger at the hands of the deceased ald others and then he had acted in a mallner to save himself from them.

17. The incident lasted for nearly 15 minutes' The appellant was in a frenzy and started stabbing 6 persons indiscriminately. Two persons died on the spot' Two persons were shifted to hospital. Third person died a-fter being taken to the hospital. Fourth person died nearly 21 days after the l4 incident. The appellant neither pleaded insanity, nor temporary insality.

18. In an incident, premeditation or intent can be gathered from the facts of that particular case. The exception 4 under Section 300 of IPC cal be invoked when there is an incident of culpable homicide without any premeditation and in a sudden hght in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. However, Exception 4 of 300 of IpC calnot be applied if the offender is found to have taken undue advantage, or acted in a cruel or an unusual malner.

19. Even assuming for a moment that there was a quarrel, and the appeliant had attacked four deceased and p.Ws.4 and 5 to save himseif, however, the malner in which four persons were stabbed continuously, inflicting several injuries on each of them, would clearly reflect the unusuaj and cruel manner in which the appellant acted on the date of incident. The manner in which the incident had taken place would only go to show that the appellant had knowledge of his acts, that his acts would result in the death of the persons whom he attacked. The intention to cause death can also arise in certain cases when an attack takes place. Such intention 15 carr be gathered from the manner in which the person had attacked and injured other persons' Since the appellalt had continuously attacked 6 persons in the very same incident' it cannot be said that the appellalt had no intention' or premeditation in committing the murders of the deceased' D.1 to D.4, or intention to cause death of P'Ws'4 and 5'

20. It is not the case of the appellant that either he was temporarily insane, or he was in any manner, attacked by the deceased or by the witnesses, when the incident happened' The appellalt did not receive any injury during the incident' In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant falls within exception 4 of 300 of IPC' 2l . There were two altercations' At the time of second altercation, while the appellalt was being taken to the hospital, the appellant indiscriminately attacked the deceased and P.W.4 and P.W'S, altogether six persons The question of the witnesses not being able to identify the assailant in such circumstances, does not arise' The incident was gruesome and went on for a considerable time' so as to leave an indelible impression in the minds of the witnesses. The argument that the accused could not be 16 identified, cannot be accepted. There are absoiutely no grounds to interfere lvi th the conviction of the appellalt.

22. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.1O29 of 2OL7 filed by the appellant is dismissed. Since, the appellant is on bail, the trial Court sha1l cause his appearance and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposerl.

23. lnsofar as Crl.A.No.l460 of 2012 filed by the State is concernecl, it is informcd that the appeilalt u.as relcased on bail- Till date, no report is filecl to show that he has misused the liberty given to him. There is no report from Jail Superintendcnt to asscss the conduct of the appellant, to shorv that he is a threat or danger to the Societ5,., as claimed by the prosecution. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No.146O of 2Ol7 filed. by the State is dismissed. I //TRUE COPY// d/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRA,R SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender (For His Lordship kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti (For His Lordship kind perusal) To,

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.(With records) 2. The Addittonal Judicial First Class magistrate, Karimnagar, Karimnagar 3. The Station House Officer, lll Town Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 4. 11 LR Copres District. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia lr/inistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) One CC to Sri. P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 6 7

8. 9 DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 \ JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1029 & 1460 ot 2017 }\- o 16 SEP 206 * o €s'n,..-r CLi (-\) DISMISSING BOTH THE APPEALS 4> 4.s J/ ,/grzt-r