Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kolati Nagaraju Raju, Guntur Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 3 October, 2024
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010282662016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3490]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1048/2016
Between:
Kolati Nagaraju @ Raju, Guntur Dt., ...APELLANT
AND
The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
V V L N SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.Srinivas)
Assailing the judgment dated 19.08.2015 in S.C.No.448 of
2014 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional Sessions
Judge at Tenali, convicted the accused for the charges under
Section 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as "IPC), the appellant/accused filed the present criminal
appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973.
2. This Criminal Appeal was admitted on 01.11.2016.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). P.W.1 and P.W.4 are the second daughter and
husband of one Savalam Nagendramma (hereinafter
referred to as "deceased") respectively. The marriage of
P.W.1 was performed with the accused and out of
wedlock they were blessed with a male child. While
P.W.1 was carrying seventh month pregnancy for second
time, the accused suspected her fidelity claiming that he
is not responsible for her pregnancy and used to harass
her. When P.W.1 went to her parental house for formal
sleep since she was pregnant, on 25.12.2013, on the day
of Christmas festival, accused went to the parental
house of P.W.1, demanded the deceased to send P.W.1
along with him for termination of her pregnancy, picked
up quarrel with deceased and threatened to kill her. On
the intervention of P.W.9 and L.W.16-Mandru
Tirupathamma, accused left the place by threatening the
deceased to see her end.
ii). On 21.01.2014, the deceased and her daughter
(P.W.1) went to Tenali for medical checkup by P.W.17
and after completion of medical checkup, when they
went to New Navayuga Hotel, Market Area, Tenali to have
tiffin, the accused who followed them, went to chicken
stall of P.W.10, took a knife, went to the said hotel at
about 1.00 p.m., caught hold the head of deceased,
twisted her head to the back, cut the neck of the
deceased deeply on either side and thereby caused
bleeding injuries. When P.W.1 caught hold the knife with
her left hand to rescue the deceased, her left hand
middle three fingers received cut injuries. P.W.5, who is
supplier in the said hotel, P.W.11 and other customers,
witnessed the incident. On that accused escaped from
the spot by throwing the knife in front of cash counter of
the hotel. Due to over bleeding, the deceased died and
P.W.1 was shifted to District Hospital, Tenali for
treatment.
iii). On receipt of Ex.P.14 admission intimation of P.W.1,
on the same day, P.W.18-A.S.I of Police, I Town Police
Station, Tenali, recorded Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 and
basing on the same, registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 2014
under Ex.P.15 F.I.R. for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and investigated into by
P.W.19 Inspector of Police. PW19 recorded the
statements of witnesses and on 28.01.2014, in the
presence of mediators, arrested the accused. P.W.16,
who treated P.W.1, issued Ex.P.13 wound certificate of
P.W.1 as well P.W.15, who conducted postmortem over
the dead body of the deceased issued Ex.P.12 report
opining that the cause of death is 'severe bleeding and
cardiac arrest due to the injuries referred by him'.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.19 laid charge sheet
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC
and the same was taken cognizance vide P.R.C.No.14 of 2014
on the file of Court of the learned I Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Tenali and committed to the Court
of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.448 of 2014 on the file of
Court of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Tenali and
after full-fledged trial, the accused was found guilty of the
charges under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and accordingly the
accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE and
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of three (3) months for the offence under Section
302 IPC and the accused was also sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment
of three (3) months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. It is
further ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused preferred
the present appeal. Pending criminal appeal, this Court granted
bail to the appellant/accused, vide orders dated 24.08.2021 in
I.A.No.1 of 2021.
6. Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and Sri K.Anand Kumar, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
7. Now the point that arises for determination in this appeal
is "Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of
the accused for the charge levelled against him, beyond all
reasonable doubt?"
8. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused submits that there are no direct witnesses to
the incident; that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 is interested in
nature; that P.Ws.3 to 5 and others did not witness the
incident; that the basic ingredient for commission of a crime
would be motive, which is absent in the present case; even if the
prosecution story is taken to be correct, the appellant/accused
cannot be said to be guilty of commission of offence
under Section 302 I.P.C., since as per own testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, intention to kill the deceased was neither
alleged nor established; that even as per the testimony of
P.W.15 medical officer, the injuries found on the dead body of
deceased are lacerated injuries, which cannot be caused with
M.O.2 and that the intention to cause death is not established,
as is evident from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
9. He further submits that as per the testimony of P.W.1, the
deceased was suffering from heart problem and even if the
death was caused with such injury, it is only homicide, but it
does not amount to commission of murder; that the death of the
deceased was said to be caused on account of excessive
bleeding as no arrangement for medical treatment of the
deceased was made by PW1 and other witnesses who gathered
at the scene of offence since the time of the incident and till she
died. Thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the
charges leveled against the appellant and that the trial Court
failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper
perspective and erroneously convicted the appellant for the said
charges, as such, prays to consider the present appeal.
10. Sri K. Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1,
who is injured eye-witness to the incident, which is
corroborated by testimony of P.W.5 and other witnesses
categorically proved the incident; that the prosecution is able to
prove that the accused committed the murder of deceased as
well caused injuries to P.W.1 by examining P.Ws.1 to 19 and
producing Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 6 , as such, he is liable
for punishment for the charges leveled against him; that the
trial Court after appreciating the material on record in a right
perspective has convicted the accused for the said charges; that
there are no valid ground urged by the appellant to meddle with
the findings recorded by the trial Court, thereby, prays to
dismiss the appeal.
Discussion and findings: -
11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused
the entire material available on record. To prove its case, the
prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 19. P.W.1 who is second
daughter of deceased as well wife of accused, said to be injured
eye witness to the incident, P.W.2 who is son of elder sister of
deceased and arrived at the spot immediately after the incident,
P.W.3 sister of P.W.1, who also visited the spot after the
incident, P.W.4 father of P.W.1 and husband of deceased, who
came to know about the murder of deceased, P.W.5, who is
supplier in the said hotel and present at the time of incident
found the accused at the spot holding a knife. PWs 6 to 8 who
are running a juice shop, sweet shop and working in the said
sweet shop respectively, near the place of incident, came to the
spot after the incident and found P.W.1 with injuries and dead
body of the deceased at the spot.
12. PW9 who is said to be related to the deceased testified
about the matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and accused
prior to the incident. PW10 who is working in the Chicken Stall
in the market area, where the accused allegedly secured M.O.2
knife to commit the offence. PW11 who is owner of the hotel
remained as a hostile witness to the prosecution case. PW12 is
the photographer. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the mediators for
observation of scene of offence, inquest over the dead body of
the deceased and arrest of the accused respectively. PW15 is the
medical officer who conducted postmortem over the dead body
of the deceased and issued Ex.P.12 postmortem report. PW16 is
the doctor, who treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.13 wound
certificate. P.W.17 is the doctor, who made medical checkup to
P.W.1 just before the incident. P.W.18 is SI of Police, who
recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered Ex.P.15 F.I.R.
and P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer.
13. To prove the incident, the only substantial testimony
available to the prosecution is P.W.1, who is said to be injured
eyewitness to the incident, wife of the accused and daughter of
the deceased. She categorically testified that since she conceived
for the second time, her husband started suspecting her
character and disowning the same stating that he is not
responsible for the pregnancy. When her mother took her to
their house for formal sleep, on 25.12.2013, on the day of
Christmas festival, the accused came to the house of her
parents, picked up quarrel with her mother claiming that he
was not responsible for the pregnancy, threatened to kill her
and her mother (deceased).
14. She further testified that on 21.01.2014, the deceased
brought her to Tenali for medical checkup and after completion
of medical checkup by P.W.17 and when they are in Hotel
Aurogya Bhavan to have tiffin, the accused came there, picked
out knife concealed in the naval area, caught hold the tuft of her
mother, twisted her head towards back and cut her throat with
that knife. When she caught hold the said knife, her fingers
received cut injuries and then accused ran away from the spot
by throwing the said knife and that she was shifted to
Government Hospital and police recorded her Ex.P.1 statement.
15. Coming to the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4 and 9, it is
relevant to the extent of proving the matrimonial disputes
between the accused and P.W.1 in suspecting the character of
P.W.1 by the accused, but not in proving the incident. However,
as per their testimony, P.Ws.2 and 3 reached the scene of
offence immediately after the incident and found P.W.1 with
injuries as well the dead body of the deceased at the scene of
offence.
16. It is not in dispute that except P.W.1, none of the
prosecution witnesses testified about their presence while
accused committing the offences of murder as well causing
injuries to P.W.1 with M.O.2 knife. However, on perusal of
testimony of P.W.5, he categorically testified that on 21.01.2014
at about 01.00 p.m., two ladies came to their hotel, sat behind
the cash counter and ordered for idly, He took order from the
elder woman and went inside and within two minutes when he
heard a sound he came out and found the accused holding a
bloody knife and that the elder woman throat was found cut
and the another woman who is later known as daughter of the
said elder woman also received injuries to her fingers. In view of
the categorical testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5, the presence of the
accused at the scene of offence cannot be disputed.
17. More so, it is the categorical testimony of P.W.10, who is
worker in Chicken stall, where the accused said to have secured
M.O.2 knife that, in January, 2014 between 12.00 noon to
12.30 p.m., the accused came to their shop and asked him for a
knife to cut a Banana Bunch, but he expressed that the knife is
not meant for cutting Bananas and refused to give, and in the
meanwhile, two or three customers came for chicken and he
was engaged in their work by keeping the knife on the pial stone
and after half an hour on verification, he found that one of the
knives was missing and he thought that it was misplaced
somewhere. Even the said M.O.2 was not confronted with
P.W.10 to say that accused secured the M.O.2 from his shop for
committing the offence and nothing was elicited during his
cross examination to disbelieve his testimony to the extent of
presence of accused at the market area where the offence is said
to have taken place. Thereby, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5
coupled with testimony of P.W.10 categorically proved the
presence of accused with the knife at the scene of offence and
offence committed by him against the deceased and P.W.1.
18. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.16 Medical Officer,
who treated P.W.1 on the date of incident itself and issued
Ex.P.13 wound certificate clearly reveals the injuries sustained
by P.W.1 in the hands of accused with M.O.2. Thereby, the
prosecution categorically proved that the accused caused
injuries to the deceased as well P.W.1 with M.O.2 knife due to
the matrimonial disputes between accused and P.W.1 and
which resulted to death of the deceased. As such, we have no
hesitation to come to a conclusion that there are no grounds
urged to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court
to convict the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
19. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant as a last resort that the accused has no intention
to cause death of the deceased and it is on an uncontrollable
emotion due to matrimonial dispute and that the deceased
received only lacerated injuries and she died out of cardiac
arrest. Even as per the testimony of PW15 Medical Officer, who
stated that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and
belief is 'due to severe bleeding and cardiac arrest due to the
injuries noticed by him'. During cross examination of PW15
also, it is elicited that if there is no cardiac arrest, there is a
possibility of survival. Besides this, while P.W.1 is in the box, it
is elicited that her mother (deceased) was not doing well prior to
that i.e., feeling pain in the heart and that a suggestion was also
made to her that deceased died of heart failure, but not due to
cut injury to the throat. Thus, as per PW1, it was brought out
that the deceased was suffering from heart problem during her
lifetime and if really the death was caused due to such
happening it is only homicide, but not homicide which amount
to murder.
20. It is settled law that in order to prove the offence under
Section 302 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the
intention to cause death, preplanned or pre-meditated as well
the act done with malicious intention.
21. It is not in dispute that even as per the prosecution
version there are matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and
accused. The deceased being mother of P.W.1 resisted the
accused for termination of pregnancy of P.W.1 by the accused.
However, as per the prosecution version, no such intention to
cause death of deceased or preplanned act done with malicious
intention was established. As stated supra, out of the incident
occurred on 25.12.2013 among the accused, P.W.1 and
deceased, due to grave emotion, the accused might have made
an attack on P.W.1 as well deceased. If the accused really have
such pre-planned malicious intention, he would not have made
an attempt to attack the deceased and PW1 at a public place,
and as such, only with heat of passion, sudden and grave
provocation and without any deliberation, the accused attacked
them without any intention.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in between Khokan v. State
of Chhattisgarh1, wherein at paragraph No.9 held that:
"Section 300 IPC is in two parts. The first part is when
culpable homicide can be said to be the murder, and the
second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is
not murder. The relevant part of Section 300 IPC for our
purpose would be Clause 4 to Section 300 and Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. As per Clause 4 to Section 300 IPC, if the
person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury, such culpable homicide can be said to be the
murder. However, as per Exception 4 to Section 300,
culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner. As per Explanation to
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the provocation or commits
the first assault."
(emphasis supplied)
1 (2021) 3 SCC 365
23. In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P.2, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held at paragraph No.29 that:
"Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the
pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as
that will decide whether the case falls under Section
302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or
insignificant matters -- plucking of a fruit, straying of
cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or
even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations
and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives
like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally
absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There
may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be
criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may
be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid
the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case
that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the
courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable
under Section 302, are not converted into offences
punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated
as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention
to cause death can be gathered generally from a
combination of a few or several of the following, among
other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii)
whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was
picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed
at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force
employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in
the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for
all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or
whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether
there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased
was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and
sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such
2 (2006) 11 SCC 444
provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual
manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or
several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of
course, not exhaustive and there may be several
other special circumstances with reference to
individual cases which may throw light on the
question of intention. Be that as it may".
(emphasis supplied)
24. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer a pronouncement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stalin v. State Represented by the
Inspector of Police3, wherein the Apex Court referred its earlier
pronouncements and held at paragraph Nos.7.1, 7.1.1, 7.2, 11
and 12 as follows:
"7.1 It is the case on behalf of the appellant - accused
that as it is a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC shall
not be attracted and the case would fall under Section
304 Part II IPC. While considering the aforesaid
submission, few decisions of this Court on whether in a
case of single injury, Section 302 IPC would be attracted
or not are required to be referred to:
7.1.1 In Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC
319, this Court while deciding the question of whether a
single blow with a knife on the chest of the deceased
would attract Section 302 IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 322-
23, para 9)
"9. ... there is no principle that in all cases of a single
blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may,
in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC, in
some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other
cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to
3 (2020) 9 SCC 524
the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts
and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the
injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the
body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the
injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is
inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to
determine the required intention or knowledge of the
offender and the offence committed by him........"
7.2.........The fact situation has to be considered in each
case, more particularly, under the circumstances
narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will
also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by
which the death was caused was done with an
intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely
to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It
is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the
nature of offence.
10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable
homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having
taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel
or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of
incident the beer was being served; all of them who
participated in the beer party were friends; the starting
of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated
hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances,
culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within
the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case narrated
hereinabove and the manner in which the incident
started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that
Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.
11. Now, the next question which is posed for
consideration of this Court is whether the case would
fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow
with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on
the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be
presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to
cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under
Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304
Part II of the IPC."
(emphasis supplied)
25. In this regard, in view of the above authoritative
pronouncements, it is categorically held that Part-I of Section
304 IPC is applicable if the act by which the death is caused is
done (i) with the intention of causing death, or, (ii) with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death. The word "intention" as used in Part-I is absent in Part-
II. Part-II shall be applicable where the intention as used in
Part-I is absent but the act is done unintentionally by an
accused with knowledge that his act is likely to cause death or
the act is done unintentionally to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death. There is subtle difference between the two
parts of Section 304 of the IPC. Under the first part, the crime of
murder is first established and the accused is then given the
benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while
under the second part, the crime of murder is never established
at all.
26. In the present case on hand, as stated supra, the accused
is husband of PW1 and son-in-law of deceased. Due to
matrimonial disputes between the accused and P.W.1, in
particular PW1's pregnancy and interference of deceased
between them, the accused become emotional and made an
attack on deceased in the state of anger, but the accused did
not commit the crime with any premeditation and thereby, the
circumstances leading to the act shows that there was no
intention to kill, but without any premeditation, the accused
committed the offence with intent to cause a bodily injury, but
which resulted in death of the deceased. Even as per the
testimony of P.W.15 Medical Officer who conducted postmortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased, the death of
the deceased is due to severe bleeding and due to the cardiac
arrest.
27. The entire prosecution case is silent with regard to
admission of deceased in hospital immediately after the incident
to save her life and as per the final report of the prosecution, the
incident happened in public place, but none of the witnesses
tried to rescue the deceased after the incident. More so, as on
the date of incident, the deceased was suffering from heart
problem which is not in dispute as admitted by PW1.
28. Having regard to the above discussion, it is clear in vivid
terms that the offence said to be committed by the accused
against the deceased fall under Section 304 Part-I, but not
Section 302 of IPC. Thereby, we are of the considered opinion
that accused is found guilty of the offence under Sections 304
Part I and 324 of IPC, as such, the conviction made by the Trial
Court against the accused under Section 302 IPC is altered to
one under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
29. Coming to the quantum of sentence, while arguing the
matter, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that
the incident had occurred on 21.01.2014 and the accused had
already undergone imprisonment of six (6) years. Now, the
appellant and P.W.1 are residing together and they have
children who are depending on the appellant. The learned
counsel for the appellant also brought to the notice of this Court
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander
v. State of Delhi4, wherein the Apex Court considered the
relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of
imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the
sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-.
30. As well in Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh5, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle by stating that
the punishment must be proper and proportional to the gravity
of offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the facts and
4AIR 1973 SC 2127
5 (2010) 12 SCC 532
circumstances, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it
was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the
crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons and
all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which
would enter into the area of consideration.
31. No doubt, in the present case also, the incident was said
to be occurred on 21.01.2014 and by this time, ten (10) years
have already lapsed and the appellant was already undergone
sentence for a period of six (6) years.
32. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
supra, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial Court shall be modified/altered
from the offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I
IPC and accordingly, for the said offence the accused is liable for
punishment of sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months.
33. In respect of offence under Section 324 IPC is also
concerned, as discussed supra, there are no valid grounds
urged by the appellant/accused to meddle with the finding
arrived by the Trial Court in respect of the conviction and
sentence.
34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed
altering the conviction made by the trial Court against the
appellant/accused from the offence under Section 302 IPC to
Section 304 Part I IPC, and consequently, sentenced him to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in
default of payment of said fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment
for a period of three (3) months. The conviction and sentence
rendered by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 of
IPC shall remain intact. It is ordered that both the sentences
imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. The period
of remand as well sentence of imprisonment if any undergone
by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
35. The bail bond of the appellant/accused, who is on bail, is
hereby cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith before the Court
of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Tenali to complete
the remaining sentence awarded as above, if not, the learned
Sessions Judge concerned is directed to take necessary steps for
compliance. A copy of this judgment shall be marked to the
Trial Court.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 03.10.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1048 of 2016
(JUDGMENT)
DATE: 03.10.2024
Krs
