THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1378 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/A6 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.210 of 2008, dated 02.11.2010, convicting the appellant/A6 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.500/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant who is arrayed as Accused No.6 and 5 others (acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 5) beat the deceased at 'URSE SHAREEF DURGAH', Sigitham Village. While the deceased and his brother-PW1 were arranging to erect a sweet shop, Accused No.1 objected for erecting sweet stall stating that they want to put up the sweet shop at the same place. There were heated arguments as both the deceased and the accused wanted to put up the shop at the same place. The 2 accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with sticks and also beat him with hands for which reason he was taken to the hospital and the doctor had declared him as brought dead. A complaint was given by PW1 and after registration, the police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against A1 to A6.
4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 23 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and after going through the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that A1 to A5 were not guilty of the alleged offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, this appellant/A6 is liable to be convicted under Section 304-II of the IPC. However, keeping in view his age, who was 19 years when the incident took place, the learned Sessions Judge had sentenced the appellant to undergo 3 years imprisonment.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though PWs.1, 5, 11 and 16 have stated that the appellant has beaten with stick, during the course of cross-examination they have stated contrary to their chief-examination. PW1 stated that he did not mention in his Ex.P1-complaint that the appellant has beaten with a stick. Likewise in the evidence of PW5 it was stated that he has witnessed the incident after the deceased was beaten. 3 Similarly, he also argued that PW11 and PW16 are related to the deceased and their evidence cannot be considered.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is consistent evidence of the four eye witnesses and all of them have stated that the appellant was the person who has beaten the deceased on his head with stick.
7. As seen from the evidence of the doctor, two injuries were received by the deceased, one, which is a laceration on the left side of the neck and the second injury as described by the doctor was the internal hemorrhage and cerebral. Apparently there was one blow which was given by this appellant.
8. The evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved for the reason of any confusion that was created during the course of cross-examination and their statement that they had seen Accused No.6 only after the deceased was beaten. There was a huge gathering and the altercation between two groups has attracted many people who have witnessed the incident.
9. In the said circumstances, no ill-motive can be attributed to any of the eye-witnesses who have stated against the appellant. For the said reason, it cannot be disbelieved that the appellant did 4 not inflict injury on the head of the deceased. As seen from the incident there was one single blow given by the appellant and the deceased died due to the internal hemorrhage and cerebral. The appellant was 19 years when the alleged incident took place and it is nearly 15 years since the incident had taken place. On instructions, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no criminal cases against the appellant. For the said reasons, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt:20.10.2022 tk 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1378 OF 2010 Dt. 20.10.2022 tk