Telangana High Court
Gundampalli Ramulu, vs The State Of Telangana, on 31 October, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.42 OF 2022
Between:
Gundampalli Ramulu ... Appellant/Accused
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad. ...Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 31.10.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 42 of 2022
% Dated 31.10.2023
# Gundampalli Ramulu ... Appellant/Accused
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad. ...Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.Ram Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sudershan,
Assistant Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.42 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused, questioning
the conviction recorded by the VII Additional District & Sessions
Judge (FTC), Nirmal, in SC.No.179 of 2017, dated 24.01.2022,
convicting the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of ten years and also a fine a of Rs.10,000/- for the offence
under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard.
3. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code for beating the deceased in the stomach
and on the head, resulting in his death. However, learned
Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses found that there
was no motive or any intent on the part of the appellant to cause
death of the deceased for which reason conviction was recorded
under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that while the
appellant was in the 'Toddy Batti', an altercation ensued in
between the deceased and the appellant for which reason the
appellant gave a blow on the stomach and also on his head. PW3,
PW4 and PW5 who were present in the 'Toddy Batti' stated that
they have witnessed the appellant beating the deceased on his
stomach.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the learned Sessions Judge having concluded that there was
no intention on the part of the appellant, erred in convicting the
appellant. Learned Counsel submits that utmost the offence may
fall within the category of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code
for causing death by a rash and negligent act.
6. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that the evidence of the doctor-PW14 and Ex.P11-
Postmortem Examination Report would show that the deceased
died on account of the acts of the appellant. Learned Sessions
Judge had rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 304-II of the Indian Penal code. The conviction does not
deserve any interference as the evidence is sufficient to record
conviction under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The death of the deceased according to PW14-doctor having
conducted the post mortem examination and seeking FSL opinion
is that the deceased died due to Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage means that there would be a bleeding
in the space that surrounds the brain, resulting in death.
8. The evidence of the witnesses is that after the appellant hit
the deceased, he fell on the ground. The result of falling on the
ground according to the prosecution are the injuries 1 to 5 in the
Postmortem Report. The said injuries are;
1) Abrasion of size 6 x 1 CM over right foot second finger.
2) Abrasion of size 3 x 1 CM over right foot third finger.
3) Abrasion of size 4 x 2 CM over right foot plantar region
lateral border.
4) Abrasion of size 1 CM x 3 MM over right elbow region.
5) Two very small abrasion of size 1 x ½ cm, 1 x ½ cm
approximately on forehead.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor in the trial Court has not
made any attempt to ascertain from the expert doctor that the
blow on the stomach or on the head or falling down would result
in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage. In the absence of an expert's
opinion that the cause of death is relatable to the injury caused by
the appellant or the consequent fall, the question of finding that
the blow on the stomach has resulted in death would be an
assumption without there being any acceptable evidence on
record.
10. Learned Sessions Judge has not discussed any reasons
regarding the death being the result of the alleged injury caused
by the appellant. According to the Postmortem Report and the
evidence of PW14-doctor, he did not find any injury on the
abdomen. Further, PW14 stated in the cross examination that the
five injuries were possible if a person falls on a hard surface.
PW14 did not state that the deceased falling on the ground
resulted in 'Subarachnoid Hemorrhage'.
11. In the entire evidence that was adduced during trial by the
prosecution, nowhere it was suggested that the cause of death can
only be the result of the blow in the stomach by the appellant or
the deceased falling on the ground. In the absence of any evidence
linking the acts of the appellant with the cause of death which is
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, the appellant cannot be convicted for
the offence under Section 304-II or 304 A of the Indian Penal
Code. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the death was a direct or consequential result of the acts of
the appellant.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has
failed to prove that the acts attributed to the appellant had any
direct nexus with the cause of death of the appellant. The
evidence of PW3 and PW4 is consistent regarding the appellant
beating once in the stomach and also on the forehead. However,
none of the injuries were related to the acts of the appellant even
according to the evidence of the doctors-PW14 and PW15.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
conviction recorded by the VII Additional District & Sessions
Judge (FTC), Nirmal, in SC.No.179 of 2017, dated 24.01.2022, is
hereby set aside. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine
amount shall be returned to the appellant.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 31.10.2023
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.42 of 2022
Dt. 31.10.2023
tk
