The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 3s9(1) of cr.p.c. piaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petiiion, the High court miy oe pleased to grant bail to the petitioner / appellant by suspend-ing the sentence passed in s.c.No.237 of 2014 dated 4.10.2017 on the rite oi the principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad pending disposal of Criminal Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M. padmalatha yadav, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additionat prEii" pio"""rtot Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT / - THE HOIIIOTI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER AND THE HONOIJITABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUGOPAL cRIMIN'AL APPEAL No.311 7 of 2O18 GMENT: (pe:'lht Hon'ble Sri Justice K'SURENDIDR) This appeal is; iled by the appellant/Accused' agp'riered by the conviction recolrl:d by the trrincipal Sessions JuCge' Adilabad' 1n S.C.No.237 cf 2011 dated O4'10 '2017' fot the offence under Sections 3O2 read u'ith 34 of IPC' and sentence tc urrder go life of Rs.5,0OO/- for ttre r'ffence imPrisonment and r.o PaY a {ine under Section 3l1l oi tPC'

2. Heard learne! t'egal Aid Counsel appearing for the apJ:ellant' and Sri Arun KutriL: Dodla' learned Additional Pub)ic F'rosr:cutor' and Sri M.Vive k'zuranda Redd'y' learned Assr'start Public Prosecutor app()ar :-rg for the respondent-State '

3. PW.1 lodged rr complaint with the police on 29't)1 2'Ol4 at 9.00 A.M. In tt.e c rl:rplaint, he stated that the appe.llar.t jo Lned as a Farm Servan.' Ior u'orking in the fields of Chinnoilir GzLngz'' Reddy s/o.Ramreddi' (F'\! 6) However' he stopped working midway The appellant took tr-' s'aiary of Rs'25'OOO/-' The younger br:>ther of pW.6, i.e., Ch.nnolle Venkat Reddy (deceased)' insist':d that the e, appellant should pay back the salar5r amount that was Slven earlier since he stopped working midway. For the said reason, there was a quarrel between them. On 29.O1.2014, in the morning hours at about 7.00 A.M., when the deceased was sitting along with Narapallu Mahesh Goud (pW.2), Mukutwar Chandrakanth (PW.3), and Velamala Rajareddy (pw.a) by the side of fire, the appellant came there, stabbed the deceased on his back, arrd fled. The deceased was immediately shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Bhainsa, and from there to the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The deceased died on account of the injuries. On 3O.Ol .2014, PW.16 conducted autopsy on the dead body. According to the Autopsy doctor, he found one ante-mortem injury, i.e., sutured injury 3 Cms. length placed transuerselg below middle of lefi soapula. On opening of suture stab injury u,tith clean cut margins measuing 3 Cms. x 1.5 Cms entering into lefi clrcst cauitg seen. On opening of chest injury to base of posteior surface of lefi lung uith 5OO ml of blood in plural cauity seen.

4. PW. 16 opined that the cause of death was due to stab injury to the left lung. Ex.P5 is the Postmortem report.

5. The Investigating Officer-PW. 18 arrested the appellant on

02.O2.2014 and conducted interrogation in the presence of .:1,.:.j.r:. r14r -:. -$ PWs.13 and 1z-, r'''he :rein the appellant informed that l'e had kept the knife-M.O,1 -'r.hich was used to stab the d'eceased at the outskirts of Mztlt:611:n village' At the instance of the accuse'1' MO' 1 was seized. A1l tht: Inateria-l objects were recovered frorn tl'e scene and seized at :he rlstance of the appellant for the purpos(r of FSL examination. Ilrr: ['SL report revealed that the rnat.t:rial objects contained hur:rzur lllood' 6 . The learn ecl Sessions Judge' on the basis of evi:]ence of PWs.2 to 4, rvtLc' are the eye-witnesses to the inr:ident recorded the convictior of i'le appellant' 7 . The learrLe rl lega1 aid counsel appearing for t he irppellant submits that 'Lr': incident happened in the month ol' '-lanuary' which is the v'irLt t:r season and at 7'OO A'M' there r'r'or tld be no light. Even a<;ccrcing to the witnesses' the person who strrbbed the deceased cant:, stlbbed him' and fled' In the sai'l circutnstances' there is no :h zurce of any of the *itt'""""" identi lying the , the counsel prayed 1cl roverse the appella,nt. For lhe said reason Judgment of cot r''ction' 8, Learned [':trlic Prosecutor' on the other hand' u'r:rt ld submit that three ey(r-\rtTnesses have categorically state:d abouI the stab by the appt:llanr. The eye-witnesses were sittir: g alon1'1 rt'ith the .at. .M: *ai&;;x;i deceased when the incident happened. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of pWs.2 to 4. .l 1

9. The incident happened in the morning around 7 A.M. pW. went to the police Station and lodged the complaint within 2 hours, i.e., by 9.O0 A.M. In the complaint, he narrated that while the deceased was sitting along with pWs.2, 3, and 4, the appellant stabbed the deceased from his back and escaped. iO. pWs.2, 3, and 4 have narrated about the incident. All the witnesses have stated about the appellant working for pW.6 and that there was a quarrel for the reason of the appellant hking Rs.2S,OOO/_ to work under pW.6, however, the appellant stopped working midway. For the said reason, the deceased insisted that the appellant should return the amount given to him in advance. The argument of the learned counsel that there was no possibility of the eye_witnesses witnessing the incident cannot be accepted. AI1 of them belong to the same village. It is 7.OO A.M. in the morning during the last days of Januar;2. Even according to the w'itnesses, there was no fog or mist on the date of the incident. At 7.OO A.M., there would be daylight. Since the appellant belonged to the same v,lage' the identification by pws.2 to 4 caanot be disbelieved. '37_

11. Accordin;4 1o the prosecution' the deceased nad ins sted that the appellant rolrrn the amount of Rs'25'OOO/- which was paid by PW.6. There \ra's a quarrel' On the date of the incid':nt' while the deceasec- rv'rs sitting along with PWs'2 to 4' tl-re appellant went there, stabb.]C )In)e from the back, and fled from the scere. 12. The Fonotrrable Supreme Court' in Mohd' Rt;$iq alias Kallu u. State c'J'Madhga Pradeshr' held as follou's: " The q:l'zstton of uhether in a giuen case' a lomiicide is murdetr, p: mishable under Section 302 IPC or citlpable homictde (tl- either desciption' punishable untTer Section erLgaged the attention of courts ;n h tdid for 3o4 I'p(:, l '-tts ,)r .e - (tt'td,-a-half century, since the enactrnen' of the ou€r IPC. t\ u"ztter of case laut' on th'e aforesai<l aspctc: exists' inclutlirul perhaps seueral hund'red nttinlls by the Suprenu' ()ourt The use of the term "tikell4" iru seueral place s tt respect of culpable tnmictde ' hi't1hli1'hts the elemer t tl uncertaintg that the act of the 'tccttst?' maA or maA not L''aue killed the person' 'section 3OO IPC which defir'e; " nturder'' houteuer refrains from the use of the ternt ''i'\tla', uhich reueals absence of ambiquit '1 lefi on behctlJ' ct.f the accused" The acansed is for surtt thttt his act uill dtz.f titelg crrltse deatlt' /t is oJten clii ficult to ' disttn'7tti;h betueen culpable lwmicide anct m'tder as botL ' r 'ttlue death' Yet' there is a subtle dist nction of inte 1ti(' I tnd knou'tledge inuolued in both tht: cir"rcs Such ' (202 t) lO Su rrt m: ( i run Cases 706 ---*-*7-'i_ .'*'tt.' -,-usrixllf, t&rt #i,* I I I i ,l i I dffirence lies in the d"egree of tle act' Th'ere is o ueru u.tide uaiance of degree of intention and knottlledge among boththe cimes'' The Honourable Supreme Court' in Prtticherla Nagataiu

13. alias Nagaraia Reddg o' Stdte of A'P'z' held as follows: -'-+, ..1 u2g.Therefore,thecourtsLnuldproceedtodecidetLe piuotal questton of intention' rt'tith care and caution' as tLnt rttill dectde whether the case falls un.der Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II' Mang pettA or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit' straying of cattle' quarrel of children, utterance of a ntde uord or euen an objectionabte glance, mag lead to altercations and group clash-es culminating in decitLt's' [Jsual motiues like reuenge' greed, jealousg or suspicion maA be totallg absent in such cases. There mag be no intention' There maA be no premeditation' In fact' there mag not euen be ciminalitg ' At the other end of the spectrum, tlrcre mag be cases of murder utttere the accused attempts to auoid the penaltg for murder bg attempting to put forth a case that tLere u)as no intention to cause d-eath' It is for the courts to enstlrethattlecasesofmurderpunishable.underSection 302, are not conuerted into offences punishable under Section 3O4 Part I/ II' or cases of culpable futmicide not amounting to murder' are treated as murder punishable under Sechon 302' Th-e intention to cause death can be gathered generallg from a combination of a fetu or seueral of the foltotting, among other' circumsllnces: (i) nature of ' (zOOO) t t SuPreme Coult Cases 444 1 t \ the weay-ctt,tsed; (ii) uhether the u.teapon uas <:orrled bA the accu:;t''i or lras picked up from the spol; (iit ) ttt,trcther the blou is aimed at a uital part of the i';od.11; ftu) the amoufti oJ' .1irce emploged in causing injury; @) ut rrcther tlrc act tu;.:; in the course of sudden quan'el or s.tdden fight or free lcr all fi,ght; (ui) whether the incident occ ffs bA chance or u thether there tuas any premetditcttior;.: (uii) u.thether tl'Lzre tuas anA prior enmitg or uhetfu'r the deceasecl. irds a stranger; (uiii) uLhetlrcr there: utai anA graue ena ,; tdden prouocation, and if so, the cause for such p'roL'octtion; (ix) tuhether it utas in the furut of passiorr. (.<) whether the person inflicting the injurq has taken nrclt, t: aduantage or has acted in a <:ntel, and unusual nl)tt-ner; (i) wheth.er tlte qccused dea.lt a single blou.t or :eue-'al blous. The aboue list of ciratmstan., res ls, of course. ntt exhaustiue and there mag be seuerai other special cilctt nstances uith reference to indiuidual cases which rttt, :.hrout light on the question of inte'nt.ic'n. Be that as it rnut." \ I

14. Admittt:dh-. there was one stab injury and tJTe appe llant fled Though ther,: tr rr; no provocation or a quarrel or a [igh:- between them, howeve -. -lre incident happened for the rea son of there being a qualr,:l r:;rrlier, in which the deceased rnsistei that the appellant ret rrr 1}re money.

15. A single tr kr,,r can form the basis to conl.ict a p erson for murder. Ho *,r:r',r r, in the present circumstances, v,,hen the ,:..ii . i,rr appellant had gone there, stabbed the deceased, and fled from the scene, the act of the appellant falls within Section 304 part_I of the Indian Penal Code. l

16. For the aforesaid discussion, the conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC is converted to Section 304 part_I of IpC and the appellant is sentenced to undergo ten (lO) years of imprisonment.

17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. u To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 5 The Prin cipal Sessions Judge at Adi labad. (wit The Jud icial First Class Magistrate Bhainsa The Su perintendent, Central priso n, Warangal The Station House Officer, Kubee r Police Station , Adilabad Division Two CCs to the Public prosecutor High Court fo r the State of Telangana at Hvd erabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri M. Fadmatatha yadav, Advocate-cum_Legal Aid [OUT] 7. Two cords, if any) CD Copies Kam/PSL HIGH COURI'T DATED:241Qt412025 t I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.i3117 of 2018 eJ c t_) oR k ,,,,i..:\. ..,. I, 2 E lttH P1 .r, z? 'ir,^ .\ PARTLY AI.-l.OWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL e t6 laK