Telangana High Court
Abdul Azeem Azeem vs The State Of A.P. on 15 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.648 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
304-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to
undergo SI for one month vide judgment in SC No.512 of
2007, dated 03.06.2008 passed by the learned II Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and his
deceased father were returning from Apollo Hospital, Jubilee
Hills on 31.03.2007 and while they were proceeding on a
motor cycle, the appellant herein suddenly crossed in front of
the motor cycle of P.W.1. P.W.1 questioned the accused as to
why he was riding in a rash manner, for which, there was a
heated verbal exchange and the accused got down and started
hitting P.W.1 and his father with helmet. When the father of
P.W.1 tried to interfere, the accused also injured the father by
kicking him in the stomach and also with helmet. The passers
by stopped him and informed the incident to the police,
Saifabad. Within 1 ½ hours of the incident, due to profuse
bleeding, the father of P.W.1 became unconscious and
thereafter died due to the head injury.
3. The police after investigation filed charge sheet under
Section 304 IPC and he was also tried for the said offence.
4. It was argued on behalf of the accused that the accused
is falsely implicated and the very identity of the appellant is
doubtful. P.W.1 says that he had seen the accused on the day
of the incident and again in the Court for which reason,
identity of the accused cannot be believed.
5. On the other hand, Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor submits that the accused had seriously
injured both P.W.1 and his father and for the said reason of
receiving injuries, the father of P.W.1 died, as such, conviction
is proper and cannot be interfered with.
6. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is apparent that it is a case
of road rage. While passing on the road, the duo, i.e, P.W.1,
his father and the accused fought regarding overtaking by the
accused, resulting in P.W.1's father falling down on the road
and subsequently dying due to head injury. P.W.6, the
Doctor, who examined the deceased performed autopsy over
the dead body and stated in her chief examination that she
was under the opinion that the injuries are possible by forcible
fall on backwards if the head coming into contact with hard
surface. The deceased would have died of head injury. P.W.6
issued Ex.P6 postmortem certificate. As seen from the
medical history of the deceased, he was suffering from kidney
related problems and according the evidence of P.W.1 and also
the complaint Ex.P1, the deceased fell on the road. The
doctor, P.W.7 had stated that the deceased when brought to
the hospital was responding to the verbal communication and
did not state about the weapon with which he was beaten.
However, the deceased patient informed that the incident
happened at Hyderguda. As stated above, it is the case of
road rage and there was heated exchange of words in between
P.W.1, his deceased father and the accused herein. However,
during the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 Doctors, they were neither
shown the helmet nor asked during their examination whether
the helmet could cause the injury to P.W.1 and his father and
whether such injuries received would result in death. It is
necessary for the reason of PW6 stating in her chief
examination that she was under the opinion that the injuries
are possible by forcible fall on backwards if the head coming
into contact with hard surface. Admittedly the deceased fell on
the road and it is not established whether the deceased died of
injuries caused by accused or due to fall on road.
7. In the said circumstances, the accused is liable to be
convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and acquitted
for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by
the accused. Accordingly, the judgment of trial Court in SC
No.512 of 2007 is modified.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed off. As a
sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall
stands closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.648 OF 2008
Date: 15.07.2022.
kvs
