Telangana High Court
Yarabolu Rami Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana on 12 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.418 of 2021
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.09.2021, in S.C.No.149 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Khammam, whereby the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The appellants herein are accused Nos.1 and 2, who were found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for assaulting Narsi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who is the brother of accused No.1, on 13.03.2016, resulting in his death on 19.04.2016.
2
4. The events that transpired in the case are that on 13.03.2016, when the deceased was going to his house around 04.00 P.M., accused No.1, who is the brother of the deceased, and accused No.2, who is the son of accused No.1, chased the deceased and beat him with a stick on his back and head. The incident happened in front of the house of the deceased. Repeated blows were given by accused No.1 with a stick, and when the deceased fell on the road, the accused kicked him with legs and trampled him into the drainage near the house of the deceased. On hearing the shoutings of PW.1 for help, the neighbours and other relatives gathered at the scene and thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the hospital.
5. The deceased was taken to the hospital where PW.16- Doctor was working. According to PW.16-Doctor, on 13.03.2016 at around 08.55 P.M., the deceased was brought to the causality with head injury. PW.16 examined the deceased, and since there was a depressed fracture of the right frontal bone with underlying brain contusion, surgery was done on 14.03.2016. Nearly 34 days thereafter, the deceased was discharged on 18.04.2016 with an advice to visit the hospital 15 days thereafter for review. According to PW.16, there was one external injury on the frontal bone. PW.16 also found 3 abrasion on the right forearm. Since the condition of the deceased was stable, he was discharged from the hospital on 18.04.2016.
6. The deceased died on 19.04.2016. PW.1 had already lodged a complaint with the police on 14.03.2016, which is the next date of the assault. In the complaint, she narrated that at around 04.00 P.M., on 13.03.2016, both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased with a stick and he was kicked with legs and pushed into the drainage.
7. The police conducted the inquest proceedings, and thereafter the body was sent for postmortem examination. After the death of the deceased, the Section of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC. PW.22 is the postmortem doctor, who found the following injuries during the course of examination:
1. Fracture of left wrist along with abrasion 2 x 3 inches;
2. Abrasion on right elbow 2 x 3 inches;
3. Lacerated wound on right parietal region 10 x 2 x ½ inch;
4. Laceration on right occipital region 5 x 2 x ½ inch; and
5. On cut section of brain matter blood collection was seen.4
8. According to PW.22, the cause of death was due to internal bleeding in the brain due to head injury. Ex.P13 is the postmortem report.
9. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on the basis of the investigation conducted and since the appellants were found to have been involved in assaulting the deceased, the charge sheet was laid for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
10. The conviction of the appellants was mainly on the basis of the evidence of PW.1 and the corroborating complaint that was lodged on 14.03.2016. The other eyewitnesses to the incident, PWs.2 to 7, turned hostile to the prosecution case.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed since she was not an eyewitness to any kind of assault on the deceased. No explanation is given nor any reasons are stated by the prosecution regarding the delay in lodging the complaint. If at all, the incident had taken place on 13.03.2016, there is no reason as to why the complaint was filed only on 14.03.2016, with a delay of nearly 25 hours, and further, the complaint reached the Court on 15.03.2016. In all, there is a delay of 43 5 hours, as such, the averments made in the complaint are an afterthought and the same cannot be looked into.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments:
1. Meharaj Singh(L/Nk) vs. State of U.P.1;
2. Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2;
3. Rajeevan and Another vs. State of Kerala 3;
4. State of Orissa vs. Brahmananda Nanda 4; and
5. Sonia Bahera vs. State of Orissa 5.
13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the deceased and the appellants are closely related, the delay cannot form basis to brush aside the case of the prosecution. There are disputes between the parties regarding land, and there is sufficient motive on the part of the appellants to harm the deceased, and accordingly, they assaulted the deceased to his death.
14. The incident happened on 13.03.2016. PW.16, the Doctor who treated PW.1, found that there was a head injury, and to that effect, surgery was done on 14.03.2016. The deceased died 1 1994 (5) SCC 188 2 (1972) 3 SCC 393 3 (2003) 3 SCC 355 4 (1976) 4 SC 288 5 (1983) 2 SCC 327 6 on 19.04.2016, after being discharged on 18.04.2016. The postmortem examination was conducted by PW.22. In the postmortem examination, the postmortem Doctor found a fracture on the left wrist of the deceased. The said fracture was not stated by PW.16. It is for the prosecution to explain as to how the fracture to the left wrist was received by the deceased, since PW.16 did not speak about such fracture. The postmortem Doctor PW.22 also failed to give the age of the injuries of the deceased.
15. The death was caused nearly 35 days after the alleged assault by the appellants. The cause of the death was due to internal bleeding in the brain due to head injury. It is not explained as to when the bleeding took place after the victim received head injury. The postmortem Doctor did not speak about the date of bleeding and the prosecution also failed to explain as to what was the reasoning given by the Doctor regarding the death of the deceased. If the bleeding had taken place on the date of the incident, it has to be explained by the prosecution as to why it was not detected and why the deceased was discharged on 18.04.2016, while PW.16 certified that the condition of the deceased was stable. 7
16. The evidence of PW.1 cannot be brushed aside solely because the other witnesses to the incident turning hostile. Since the deceased was the brother of accused No.1, it is admitted that there were disputes between the parties regarding the land. The delay in lodging the complaint cannot form a basis to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1, who has stated about the assault committed by accused Nos.1 and 2.
17. However, the prosecution has failed to explain that the injuries caused by accused Nos.1 and 2 on the date of the incident were a direct result of the death of the deceased. There is a gap of nearly 35 days between the assault and the death. It is for the prosecution to come up with an explanation and to prove that the death was a direct result of the injuries that were received by the deceased on 13.03.2016. However, the evidence of PW.1 regarding the assault by the accused on the date of incident is believable.
18. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (04) years. The conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside for the reasons discussed above.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 8
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ K.SURENDER, J _____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 12.06.2025 VSU