Telangana High Court
Mandula Narayana, Medak Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 19 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.02.2016 in S.C.No.50 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy, convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 448 and 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Mrs.Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2013 around 6 a.m., when P.W.1 was sweeping the front yard of their house, A-2 allegedly threw stool/dregs of her children in the front yard of the house. When P.W.1 admonished A-2, heated argument took place between P.W.1 and the appellant. The deceased who is the son of P.W.1 intervened and pacified between them. Both of them went away. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 allegedly trespassed into the 2 house, A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the deceased and A-1 beat with an axe on the head of the deceased resulting in grevious injury. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital. On 21.05.2013 i.e., the next day, complaint was filed by P.W.1 narrating the incident regarding altercation that took place between P.W.1 and A-2. It was also stated in the complaint that A-1 to A-3 trespassed into the house and A-1 beat the deceased with an axe resulting in grevious injury.
4. The complaint/Ex.P.1 was initially registered for the offence under Sections 448 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 23.05.2013 i.e., three days after the incident. The Section of law was altered to Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. The Police visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchnama. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also concluded. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. After concluding the post mortem examination, post mortem Doctor/P.W.12 has given report that 'head injury' was the cause of death.
3
5. Having concluded the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 448, 504 and 302 r/w. 34 of IPC against all the three accused.
6. Learned Sessions Judge found that the complicity of A-2 ad A-3 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and accordingly, acquitted A-2 and A-3. However, A-1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the alleged attack on the deceased was on account of altercation that took place between P.W.1 and A-2, which is admitted. The injury that was received is one cut injury on the head. Further, it is not disputed by the prosecution that only one injury was caused by A-1. In the said circumstances, the offence at most would fall under Section 304-II of IPC, since there was no premeditation or intent on the part of A-1 and the alleged incident took place pursuant to altercation that took place in between P.W.1 and A-2.
8. Learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh vs. State of 4 Punjab 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case found that there was one injury which was inflicted with a knife. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that offence committed would fall under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced the accused to 5 years of imprisonment. Learned senior counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hallu And Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2. The accused therein was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for assaulting with an axe. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, while considering the evidence on record found four lacerated wounds and two bruises. According to eye witnesses, two men attacked with lathis, spears and axes. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no deliberate attack using sharp side of the axe and accordingly, conviction was reversed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He also relied on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Lal And Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh 3 and argued that when there is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, it casts any 1 (1983) 2 SCC 342 2 (1974) 4 SCC 300 3 (2023) 10 SCC 471 5 amount of doubt on prosecution's case being correct. In the present case, there is a delay of 36 hours which was not explained. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P. with Indrajit Mishra and Another vs. State of U.P 4, wherein the said Court was dealing with the case where there was a delay in filing FIR, as such, benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants.
9. In the case on hand, A-1 assaulted the deceased with an axe pursuant to altercation that took place. He gave one blow on the head. The said fact of there being an altercation and pursuant to which A-1 assaulting the deceased is not disputed by the prosecution.
10. The deceased after receiving injury was taken to the hospital and was treated for three days, thereafter, he died. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there was intent on the part of the appellant to cause death was determinative. The deceased survived for 3 days and while undergoing treatment, he died. In the said circumstances, the offence falls under Section 304-II of IPC as observed by 4 2021 SCC Online 193 6 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh' s case (supra 1), similar are the facts on hand.
11. The conviction under Section 302 of IPC is altered to 304-II of IPC. The conviction under Section 448 against the appellant is sustained. The appellant is sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Since it is informed that the appellant has already undergone more than 7 years of imprisonment, no further orders are required.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ________________ K. SARATH, J Date: 19.11.2024 dv