Gangaram Raju Karre Raju, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3646 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1177 of 2008


JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was charged for the offence under

Section 302 IPC. However, the Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, NTR Nagar Hyderabad convicted

the appellant for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC vide

judgment dated 15.09.2008 in S.C.No.671 of 2007 and

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of

five years. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased is

brother of P.W.1. The appellant and the deceased were friends.

On 11.05.2007 at about 12.00 noon, P.W.1 went to the house

of the deceased to give tiffin. The house of the deceased was

situated nearby the house of P.W.1. When she went to the

house of the deceased at 12.00 noon, she found the appellant

and the deceased were playing cards. Again P.W.1 went back

to the house of the deceased around 1.00 p.m, when she was

about to enter the house, the appellant/accused came out

from the house and his shirt was stained with blood. P.W.1

entered into the house and found the deceased in a pool of

blood and the playing cards were scattered on the floor. On

seeing the deceased injured, P.W.1 shouted for help and the

neighbors came. Immediately, P.W.1 lodged complaint at 2.00

p.m, which is Ex.P1 stating that the appellant/accused herein

had murdered her brother.

3. Prior to the arrest, the police, on the basis of the

complaint, proceeded to the house of the deceased and

conducted scene of offence panchanama and also sketch was

drawn at the scene of offence. Having received the complaint,

the police, during the course of investigation, apprehended the

appellant/accused herein on 15.05.2007 and seized one cream

colour pant light green colour shirt with blood stains.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit

that P.W.1 is the only witness to the alleged incident and she

was planted to speak against the appellant/accused herein. It

is highly improbable that when tiffin box was given at 12.00

noon, she again went to the house of the deceased brother at

1.00 p.m. No reason is given as to why she again went to the

house of her deceased brother. He further argued that the

deceased had many enemies, for which reason, anyone must

have attacked him. Since P.W.1 is a planted witness and even

according to her she is not a witness, the finding of the trial

Court has to be reversed.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the

circumstances under which the appellant/accused was

arrested and seizures were affected, which are blood stained

shirt and pant would clearly show that it was the appellant

and none else who was responsible for causing the death of

the deceased.

6. The appellant was seen by P.W.1 at the residence of the

deceased while playing cards. It is not disputed during the

course of cross-examination that the deceased and the

appellant are friends. Further, it is suggested that the

deceased must have died due to the differences with his wife.

7. P.W.4 is witness to the scene of offence panchanama and

also the inquest proceedings. He deposed that it was at the

instance of the appellant/accused that the blood stained pant

and shirt, which are MOs.4 and 5 were seized. According to

P.W.9, both the deceased and the appellant visited his wine

shop and after consuming liquor, they left the place. Further,

the appellant/accused came back to the wine shop and

purchased liquor and went back.

8. The prosecution has proved that the appellant was

present in the house of the deceased on the day when the

deceased was dead. It is for the appellant/accused to explain

under what circumstances the deceased died as he was last

seen in the company of the deceased by P.W.1 and also while

the appellant/accused was leaving the house with the blood

stains on his pant and shirt. Further, absconding of the

appellant from the scene of offence is also a circumstance to

infer that it was the appellant/accused who was responsible

for causing the death of the deceased.

9. In the said circumstances, in view of above mentioned

discussion, there is no doubt that the appellant/accused

herein has caused the death of the deceased. However,

keeping in view that the appellant/accused was in drunken

condition, even according to the prosecution case, the trial

court finding that there was no intention on the part of the

appellant/accused to kill the deceased, this Court deems it

proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

10. In the result, the conviction imposed by the Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, in S.C.No.671 of

2007 vide judgment dated 15.09.2008, against the appellant-

Accused for the offence under Section 304(II) of IPC, is

confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed

by the learned Sessions Judge is modified to that of the period

which the appellant/accused has already undergone.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 12.07.2022 kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.1177 OF 2008

Date:12.07.2022

kvs