Md. Zameer, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5227 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1378 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/A6 aggrieved

by the conviction recorded by the VII Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in S.C.No.210 of 2008,

dated 02.11.2010, convicting the appellant/A6 for the offence

punishable under Sections 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and

sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a

fine of Rs.500/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused

the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant who

is arrayed as Accused No.6 and 5 others (acquitted Accused Nos.1

to 5) beat the deceased at 'URSE SHAREEF DURGAH', Sigitham

Village. While the deceased and his brother-PW1 were arranging to

erect a sweet shop, Accused No.1 objected for erecting sweet stall

stating that they want to put up the sweet shop at the same place.

There were heated arguments as both the deceased and the

accused wanted to put up the shop at the same place. The

accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with sticks and also beat

him with hands for which reason he was taken to the hospital and

the doctor had declared him as brought dead. A complaint was

given by PW1 and after registration, the police conducted

investigation and filed charge sheet against A1 to A6.

4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to

23 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and after going through the

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that A1 to A5

were not guilty of the alleged offence under Section 302 read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code, however, this appellant/A6 is liable

to be convicted under Section 304-II of the IPC. However, keeping

in view his age, who was 19 years when the incident took place,

the learned Sessions Judge had sentenced the appellant to

undergo 3 years imprisonment.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though

PWs.1, 5, 11 and 16 have stated that the appellant has beaten

with stick, during the course of cross-examination they have

stated contrary to their chief-examination. PW1 stated that he did

not mention in his Ex.P1-complaint that the appellant has beaten

with a stick. Likewise in the evidence of PW5 it was stated that he

has witnessed the incident after the deceased was beaten.

Similarly, he also argued that PW11 and PW16 are related to the

deceased and their evidence cannot be considered.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is consistent

evidence of the four eye witnesses and all of them have stated that

the appellant was the person who has beaten the deceased on his

head with stick.

7. As seen from the evidence of the doctor, two injuries were

received by the deceased, one, which is a laceration on the left

side of the neck and the second injury as described by the doctor

was the internal hemorrhage and cerebral. Apparently there was

one blow which was given by this appellant.

8. The evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved for

the reason of any confusion that was created during the course of

cross-examination and their statement that they had seen

Accused No.6 only after the deceased was beaten. There was a

huge gathering and the altercation between two groups has

attracted many people who have witnessed the incident.

9. In the said circumstances, no ill-motive can be attributed to

any of the eye-witnesses who have stated against the appellant.

For the said reason, it cannot be disbelieved that the appellant did

not inflict injury on the head of the deceased. As seen from the

incident there was one single blow given by the appellant and the

deceased died due to the internal hemorrhage and cerebral. The

appellant was 19 years when the alleged incident took place and it

is nearly 15 years since the incident had taken place. On

instructions, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there

are no criminal cases against the appellant. For the said reasons,

the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period

already undergone.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing

the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal

petition, shall stand closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt:20.10.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1378 OF 2010

Dt. 20.10.2022

tk