Parlapalli Narsaiah, Warangal Dist. ... vs P.P., Hyd

Telangana High Court

Parlapalli Narsaiah, Warangal Dist. ... vs P.P., Hyd on 4 July, 2024

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                          AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No.48 of 2015
JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed by the appellants - accused Nos.1 to 3 assailing the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal (for short, the 'Trial Court') in S.C.No.330 of 2012.

2. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant / accused No.1 to 3 and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein guilty for the offence punishable under Section 447 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. Upon convicting them, the Trial Court has sentenced the appellant Nos.1 to 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one (01) month. The Trail Court further sentenced the appellants of imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence under Section 447 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.07.2011, a quarrel over a missing umbrella at a liquor shop led to a heated argument between Narsaiah (hereinafter 'the deceased') and appellant No.1 (Parlapalli Narsaiah). According to the prosecution, both the deceased and appellant No.1 consumed liquor with their acquaintance and subsequently engaged in a verbal spat when the appellant No.1 is said to have accused the deceased for hiding his umbrella. Following this confrontation, appellant No.1 went home and informed the appellant No.2 (Parlapalli Odamm, wife of the appellant No.1), appellant No.3 (Parlapalli Ramesh, son of the appellant No.1 and 2) and a juvenile (who was tried separately) about the incident. The prosecution alleges that the appellant No.1 to 3 and a juvenile armed with deadly weapons conspired and went to the deceased house with the intent to attack him. The appellant No.1 to 3 and juvenile reportedly launched a brutal assault on the deceased resulting in his immediate death due to severe injuries inflicted by the weapons they carried.

5. Subsequently, after the incident, PW.1 (P. Chandraiah, father of the deceased) lodged a complaint in Chityal Police Station and after examining, the police authorities in turn registered Crime No.79 of 2011 and took cognizance of an offence under Section 447 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. On 18.07.2011, the police authorities apprehended appellant Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile on receiving a call Page 3 of 14 from their owner where they made an extra judicial confession about the commission of the offence. Meanwhile, PW.10 (Medical Officer) held autopsy over the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock due to head injury.

6. In the course of trail, the prosecution examined as much as fifteen (15) witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P10. No witnesses were examined in defence. Subsequently, on recording the statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment of conviction was passed and which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment contended that the findings of the Trail Court are perverse and in contravention to the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Trail Court erred in relying on the testimony of PWs.1 to 4 who are described as highly interested and discrepant witnesses. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that PWs.1 to 3 were not actual eye witnesses and that their presence at the scene was staged. The learned counsel for the appellants also points out that PW.5 an independent eye witness, who did not support their case and was declared hostile. They highlight various omissions, contradictions and improbabilities in the evidence presented by the so-called eye witnesses and note that the Page 4 of 14 motive attributed to the appellants was inconsistent between the charge sheet and the evidence presented.

8. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellants emphasized that according to the statement of PW.7 the deceased was of bad character involved in criminal activities and had enmity with several people in the village. The learned counsel for the appellants also mentioned that key mediators for the confession and recovery did not support the prosecution's case and were declared hostile and that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witnesses accounts and the presence of the eye witnesses at the scene of the crime is also questioned.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants put forth several contentions in defence of appellant No.1 to 3 and a juvenile in the case of the deceased. To begin with, the deceased had a questionable character and was involved in prior criminal activities including teasing women in the village and causing disturbances in a drunken state. This according to the learned counsel for the appellants resulted in enmity with several people in the village and even led to him being fined in a petty case by the police.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants also questioned the clarity of the motive behind the attack. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to decisively explain whether the motive was due to Page 5 of 14 the deceased teasing the appellant No.2 or the quarrel over the missing umbrella. This ambiguity weakens the prosecution's case. Furthermore, he highlighted that the prosecution did not establish a clear link between the blood found on the seized articles and the blood of the deceased thereby raising doubts about the reliability of the forensic evidence.

11. Another significant point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the credibility of the witnesses. He emphasized that some of the witnesses had turned hostile which cast serious doubts on the prosecution's narrative. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the confession and subsequent recovery of material objects were not trustworthy suggesting that these pieces of evidence might have been manipulated or fabricated by the police.

12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to discredit these witnesses by highlighting the deceased's questionable character and past criminal activities. He argued that the deceased's history of vices, prior criminal cases and creating nuisances in the village should be taken into account. However, the Trial Court ruled that these factors did not diminish the direct evidence of the attack presented by the eyewitnesses.

13. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming and Page 6 of 14 convincingly established the guilt of the appellants. The case against the appellant Nos.1 to 3 was built on a solid foundation of eyewitness testimonies, medical reports and material evidence. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses PWs.1 to 4 were consistent and corroborated each other detailing the brutal attack on the deceased by the appellant No.1 to 3 and a juvenile. These witnesses provided a clear and detailed account of the events leading to the death of the deceased, describing how the appellants armed with deadly weapons, attacked him at his house.

14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the medical evidence provided by PW.10, the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination confirmed the nature and cause of the injuries which aligned with the eyewitness accounts. PW.10 testified that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from severe head injuries including a depressed fracture on the left parietal bone, a contusion on the left shoulder joint and a cut injury on the pinna of the left ear. This medical evidence supported the prosecution's narrative that the injuries were inflicted by the appellants using weapons.

15. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the recovery of material objects such as the blood stained axe and stick in pursuance of the confessional statements given by the Page 7 of 14 appellants was substantiated by the Investigating Officer, PW.15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized that these recoveries were crucial pieces of evidence that linked the appellants directly to the crime. Despite some mediators like PW.11 and 13 turning hostile, the Trial Court found the investigation and the evidence presented by PW.15 to be credible and convincing.

16. Likewise, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the learned counsel for the appellants attempts to discredit the witnesses by focusing on the deceased's past criminal activities and character flaws were irrelevant to the case. The learned counsel for the appellants highlighted that the deceased had a history of vices, prior criminal cases and a reputation for creating nuisances in the village. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that these factors did not diminish the direct evidence of the attack presented by the eyewitnesses. The direct evidence supported by credible testimonies and medical reports clearly pointed the involvement of the appellants in the murder of the deceased leaving no room for reasonable doubt. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

17. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, admittedly the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidences of PWs.1 to 4. In the given factual backdrop, it would be relevant to take note of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. Page 8 of 14

18. According to the evidence of PW.1 (P.Chandraiah, father of the deceased), testified that he was present at the scene when the appellants No.1 to 3 and a juvenile attacked the deceased. According to PW.1, the appellants arrived at their house armed with deadly weapons (axe) and launched a brutal assault on his son. He vividly described how the appellants driven by anger and intent, inflicted severe injuries on the deceased leading to his immediate death. PW's.1 testimony was crucial as it corroborated the prosecution's narrative and was consistent with the accounts of other eyewitnesses PWs.2 to PW4 who were also present at the scene. He emphasized the manner in which the appellants carried out the attack highlighting their collective intent to harm the deceased. Additionally, PW.1 confirmed that the quarrel at the liquor shop earlier that day as testified by PW.6 was prompt for the attack. His testimony marked by its coherence and detail played a significant role in establishing the sequence of events and the involvement of the appellants in the crime.

19. Similarly, PW.2 (P.Rajhitha, daughter of the deceased) another key eyewitness testified that she was present at the scene of crime and witnessed the entire incident. According to PW.2, she saw the appellants Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile arrived at their house with an axe and a stick and launched a brutal and violent attack on his father, the deceased striking him multiple times with the weapons they carried. PW.2 recounted that the blows inflicted by the appellants were so Page 9 of 14 severe that the deceased sustained critical injuries leading to his immediate death. PW's.2 testimony was consistent with the accounts provided by PW.1 and other eye witnesses adding a significant weight to the prosecution's case. Her vivid description of the attack, detailing the actions and involvement of each appellants provided a crucial evidence that helped establish the guilt of appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

20. Likewise, PW.3 (P.Pavan, son of the deceased) another key eyewitness testified that he was present at the scene of the crime and witnessed the entire incident in front of his eyes. According to PW.3, he saw the appellants No.1 to 3 and a juvenile arrived at the deceased's house with an axe and a stick and launched a brutal and violent attack on the deceased striking him multiple times with the weapons they carried. He recounted that the blows inflicted by the appellants were so severe and relentless that the deceased died immediate on the spot. PW's.3 testimony was consistent and aligned with the accounts provided by PWs.1 and 2 thereby adding significant weight to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, PW.3 emphasized the aggressive and premeditated nature of the attack noting how the appellants coordinated their actions with a clear intent to kill. PW's.3 deposition was in detail which resonated with the Court leaving no room for doubt regarding the involvement of the appellants in the crime.

21. According to the evidence of PW.4 (V.Jampaiah) an independent witness provided a crucial testimony that further supported the accounts given by PWs.1 to 3. He testified that he was at the scene of the crime and observed the appellants No.1 to 3 and a juvenile attacking the deceased with deadly weapons. PW.4 stated that he saw the appellants strike the deceased multiple times leading to severe injuries that caused his immediate death. He noted that the attack was both brutal and premeditated with the appellants coordinating their actions to ensure the fatal outcome. PW's.4 testimony was consistent and corroborated the other witnesses statements reinforcing the prosecution's case and establishing the guilt of appellants Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, his unbiased and detailed account of the incident added significant weight to the evidence presented before this Court.

22. According to the evidence of PW.6 (E. Lingaiah) who operated a liquor shop provided a comprehensive and detailed statement of the events that on 13.07.2011 which played a crucial role in understanding the motive behind the tragic incident. On that day, the deceased and the appellant No.1 visited PW's.6 shop to purchase I.D. liquor a common activity for both men who were regular patrons. After consuming the liquor together, the appellant No.1 realized that his umbrella was missing and initially inquired with PW.6 who had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the umbrella. Frustrated, the Page 11 of 14 appellant No.1 left the shop but soon returned visibly agitated and accusatory. He began to blame the deceased for hiding the umbrella and this accusation rapidly escalated into a heated verbal confrontation and appellant No.1 used abusive language towards the deceased who responded with equally harsh words leading to an intense argument. PW.6 intervened urging them to leave his premises in an attempt to calm the situation. Despite his efforts, the conflict did not cease both men eventually departed to their respective homes, but the animosity continued to simmer. Later that evening, the deceased armed with an axe went to the appellant No.1 house and began shouting, abusing and challenging the appellant No.1 to come out of the house which further aggravated the hostility. After this confrontation, the deceased returned to his home. Further PW.6 did not witness the subsequent fatal attack on the deceased but confirmed the significant quarrel at his shop over the missing umbrella. This initial altercation, as described by PW.6 provided critical context to the motive behind the fatal assault corroborating the prosecution's narrative. His testimony highlighted the escalating tension between the deceased and the appellant No.1 which ultimately led to the brutal attack on the deceased later that night. PW.6's detailed account underscored the importance of the quarrel as a key factor in the tragic chain of events making his statement a pivotal piece of evidence in the case.

23. In addition to the aforesaid depositions of PWs.1 to 4 and 6, it would also be relevant to take note of the evidence of PW.10, the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination identified several anti-mortem injuries, which are as under:

1. A depressed fracture about 7 x 3 x 1 cm over the left parietal bone of the scalp.

2. A contusion about 7 x 3 inches on the left shoulder joint.

3. A cut injury of about 4 x 5 cm on the pinna of the left ear.

Upon opening the scalp, PW.10 observed that brain matter protruded from the meninges through the wound on the left side of the parietal region and concluded that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the head injury. He confirmed that injury No.1 could be caused by an axe, injury No.2 by an axe or stick and injury No.3 potentially by a fall on the ground. Although during the cross-examination he acknowledged that injury No.1 could occur from a fall on a stone from a height of 5 to 6 feet, his primary testimony aligned with the eye-witness accounts of PWs.1 to 4 substantiating that the injuries were inflicted by an attack rather than an accidental fall.

24. Upon careful examination of the evidences and considering the detailed testimonies presented by both the counsel conclude that the initial conviction under Section 302 of the IPC which pertains to murder is altered to Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC dealing with Page 13 of 14 culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This decision was influenced by several critical factors. Primarily, this Court recognized that the incident stemmed from an immediate provocation, a quarrel over a missing umbrella at a liquor shop which escalated rapidly. The evidence suggested that the appellant did not have a premeditated intent to kill the deceased but rather acted in the heat of the moment following the heated argument. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses including those of PWs.1 to 4 consistently described the attack as a spontaneous act of violence rather than a calculated murder.

25. Additionally, the medical evidence provided by PW.10 detailing the injuries and cause of death supported the narrative of a sudden and unplanned assault on the deceased. This Court also took into account the counsel for the appellants arguments about the deceased's questionable character and past criminal activities which are not justifying the attack provided context to the provocation. In light of these considerations this Court determines that the actions of the appellants fall under the purview of Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC. Further, this Court revises the sentence to reflect this reclassification acknowledging the gravity of the offense while also considering the mitigating circumstances.

26. Therefore, the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside. However, the appellants having found guilty of the offence Page 14 of 14 under Section 304 Part I of IPC stands convicted for the said offence and are accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with fine of Rs.2000/- as awarded by the Trial Court. In the event, if the fine amount is not deposited within thirty (30) days, the appellants would have to undergo further simple imprisonment for one (01) month.

27. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part.

28. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J Date: 04.07.2024 GSD