Parlapalli Narsaiah, Warangal Dist. ... vs P.P., Hyd
2024 Latest Caselaw 2504 Tel

Telangana High Court

Parlapalli Narsaiah, Warangal Dist. ... vs P.P., Hyd on 4 July, 2024

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
                          AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No.48 of 2015
JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

The instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed by the appellants - accused

Nos.1 to 3 assailing the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2015

passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Warangal (for short, the 'Trial Court') in S.C.No.330 of 2012.

2. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant /

accused No.1 to 3 and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has found the

appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 447 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and convicted them under Section 235(2)

of Cr.P.C. Upon convicting them, the Trial Court has sentenced the

appellant Nos.1 to 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and fine

of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple

imprisonment for one (01) month. The Trail Court further sentenced

the appellants of imprisonment for three (03) months for the offence

under Section 447 of IPC.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.07.2011, a

quarrel over a missing umbrella at a liquor shop led to a heated

argument between Narsaiah (hereinafter 'the deceased') and appellant

No.1 (Parlapalli Narsaiah). According to the prosecution, both the

deceased and appellant No.1 consumed liquor with their acquaintance

and subsequently engaged in a verbal spat when the appellant No.1 is

said to have accused the deceased for hiding his umbrella. Following

this confrontation, appellant No.1 went home and informed the

appellant No.2 (Parlapalli Odamm, wife of the appellant No.1),

appellant No.3 (Parlapalli Ramesh, son of the appellant No.1 and 2)

and a juvenile (who was tried separately) about the incident. The

prosecution alleges that the appellant No.1 to 3 and a juvenile armed

with deadly weapons conspired and went to the deceased house with

the intent to attack him. The appellant No.1 to 3 and juvenile

reportedly launched a brutal assault on the deceased resulting in his

immediate death due to severe injuries inflicted by the weapons they

carried.

5. Subsequently, after the incident, PW.1 (P. Chandraiah, father of

the deceased) lodged a complaint in Chityal Police Station and after

examining, the police authorities in turn registered Crime No.79 of

2011 and took cognizance of an offence under Section 447 and 302

read with 34 of IPC. On 18.07.2011, the police authorities

apprehended appellant Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile on receiving a call

from their owner where they made an extra judicial confession about

the commission of the offence. Meanwhile, PW.10 (Medical Officer)

held autopsy over the body of the deceased and opined that the

deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock due to head injury.

6. In the course of trail, the prosecution examined as much as

fifteen (15) witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P10. No witnesses were

examined in defence. Subsequently, on recording the statement of the

appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the impugned judgment of

conviction was passed and which is under challenge in the instant

appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned

judgment contended that the findings of the Trail Court are perverse

and in contravention to the evidence on record. The learned counsel

for the appellants also contended that the Trail Court erred in relying

on the testimony of PWs.1 to 4 who are described as highly interested

and discrepant witnesses. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the

appellants contended that PWs.1 to 3 were not actual eye witnesses

and that their presence at the scene was staged. The learned counsel

for the appellants also points out that PW.5 an independent eye

witness, who did not support their case and was declared hostile. They

highlight various omissions, contradictions and improbabilities in the

evidence presented by the so-called eye witnesses and note that the

motive attributed to the appellants was inconsistent between the

charge sheet and the evidence presented.

8. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellants emphasized

that according to the statement of PW.7 the deceased was of bad

character involved in criminal activities and had enmity with several

people in the village. The learned counsel for the appellants also

mentioned that key mediators for the confession and recovery did not

support the prosecution's case and were declared hostile and that the

medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witnesses accounts and

the presence of the eye witnesses at the scene of the crime is also

questioned.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants put forth several

contentions in defence of appellant No.1 to 3 and a juvenile in the case

of the deceased. To begin with, the deceased had a questionable

character and was involved in prior criminal activities including

teasing women in the village and causing disturbances in a drunken

state. This according to the learned counsel for the appellants resulted

in enmity with several people in the village and even led to him being

fined in a petty case by the police.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants also questioned the

clarity of the motive behind the attack. He pointed out that the

prosecution failed to decisively explain whether the motive was due to

the deceased teasing the appellant No.2 or the quarrel over the

missing umbrella. This ambiguity weakens the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, he highlighted that the prosecution did not establish a

clear link between the blood found on the seized articles and the blood

of the deceased thereby raising doubts about the reliability of the

forensic evidence.

11. Another significant point raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants was that the credibility of the witnesses. He emphasized

that some of the witnesses had turned hostile which cast serious

doubts on the prosecution's narrative. The learned counsel for the

appellants argued that the confession and subsequent recovery of

material objects were not trustworthy suggesting that these pieces of

evidence might have been manipulated or fabricated by the police.

12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to

discredit these witnesses by highlighting the deceased's questionable

character and past criminal activities. He argued that the deceased's

history of vices, prior criminal cases and creating nuisances in the

village should be taken into account. However, the Trial Court ruled

that these factors did not diminish the direct evidence of the attack

presented by the eyewitnesses.

13. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended

that the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming and

convincingly established the guilt of the appellants. The case against

the appellant Nos.1 to 3 was built on a solid foundation of eyewitness

testimonies, medical reports and material evidence. According to the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the testimonies of the

eyewitnesses PWs.1 to 4 were consistent and corroborated each other

detailing the brutal attack on the deceased by the appellant No.1 to 3

and a juvenile. These witnesses provided a clear and detailed account

of the events leading to the death of the deceased, describing how the

appellants armed with deadly weapons, attacked him at his house.

14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the

medical evidence provided by PW.10, the Doctor, who conducted the

post-mortem examination confirmed the nature and cause of the

injuries which aligned with the eyewitness accounts. PW.10 testified

that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting

from severe head injuries including a depressed fracture on the left

parietal bone, a contusion on the left shoulder joint and a cut injury

on the pinna of the left ear. This medical evidence supported the

prosecution's narrative that the injuries were inflicted by the

appellants using weapons.

15. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that

the recovery of material objects such as the blood stained axe and

stick in pursuance of the confessional statements given by the

appellants was substantiated by the Investigating Officer, PW.15. The

learned Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized that these recoveries

were crucial pieces of evidence that linked the appellants directly to

the crime. Despite some mediators like PW.11 and 13 turning hostile,

the Trial Court found the investigation and the evidence presented by

PW.15 to be credible and convincing.

16. Likewise, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that

the learned counsel for the appellants attempts to discredit the

witnesses by focusing on the deceased's past criminal activities and

character flaws were irrelevant to the case. The learned counsel for the

appellants highlighted that the deceased had a history of vices, prior

criminal cases and a reputation for creating nuisances in the village.

However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that

these factors did not diminish the direct evidence of the attack

presented by the eyewitnesses. The direct evidence supported by

credible testimonies and medical reports clearly pointed the

involvement of the appellants in the murder of the deceased leaving no

room for reasonable doubt. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

17. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of records, admittedly the entire case of the prosecution rests

upon the evidences of PWs.1 to 4. In the given factual backdrop, it

would be relevant to take note of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4.

18. According to the evidence of PW.1 (P.Chandraiah, father of the

deceased), testified that he was present at the scene when the

appellants No.1 to 3 and a juvenile attacked the deceased. According

to PW.1, the appellants arrived at their house armed with deadly

weapons (axe) and launched a brutal assault on his son. He vividly

described how the appellants driven by anger and intent, inflicted

severe injuries on the deceased leading to his immediate death. PW's.1

testimony was crucial as it corroborated the prosecution's narrative

and was consistent with the accounts of other eyewitnesses PWs.2 to

PW4 who were also present at the scene. He emphasized the manner

in which the appellants carried out the attack highlighting their

collective intent to harm the deceased. Additionally, PW.1 confirmed

that the quarrel at the liquor shop earlier that day as testified by PW.6

was prompt for the attack. His testimony marked by its coherence and

detail played a significant role in establishing the sequence of events

and the involvement of the appellants in the crime.

19. Similarly, PW.2 (P.Rajhitha, daughter of the deceased) another

key eyewitness testified that she was present at the scene of crime and

witnessed the entire incident. According to PW.2, she saw the

appellants Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile arrived at their house with an axe

and a stick and launched a brutal and violent attack on his father, the

deceased striking him multiple times with the weapons they carried.

PW.2 recounted that the blows inflicted by the appellants were so

severe that the deceased sustained critical injuries leading to his

immediate death. PW's.2 testimony was consistent with the accounts

provided by PW.1 and other eye witnesses adding a significant weight

to the prosecution's case. Her vivid description of the attack, detailing

the actions and involvement of each appellants provided a crucial

evidence that helped establish the guilt of appellants beyond a

reasonable doubt.

20. Likewise, PW.3 (P.Pavan, son of the deceased) another key

eyewitness testified that he was present at the scene of the crime and

witnessed the entire incident in front of his eyes. According to PW.3,

he saw the appellants No.1 to 3 and a juvenile arrived at the

deceased's house with an axe and a stick and launched a brutal and

violent attack on the deceased striking him multiple times with the

weapons they carried. He recounted that the blows inflicted by the

appellants were so severe and relentless that the deceased died

immediate on the spot. PW's.3 testimony was consistent and aligned

with the accounts provided by PWs.1 and 2 thereby adding significant

weight to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, PW.3 emphasized the

aggressive and premeditated nature of the attack noting how the

appellants coordinated their actions with a clear intent to kill. PW's.3

deposition was in detail which resonated with the Court leaving no

room for doubt regarding the involvement of the appellants in the

crime.

21. According to the evidence of PW.4 (V.Jampaiah) an independent

witness provided a crucial testimony that further supported the

accounts given by PWs.1 to 3. He testified that he was at the scene of

the crime and observed the appellants No.1 to 3 and a juvenile

attacking the deceased with deadly weapons. PW.4 stated that he saw

the appellants strike the deceased multiple times leading to severe

injuries that caused his immediate death. He noted that the attack

was both brutal and premeditated with the appellants coordinating

their actions to ensure the fatal outcome. PW's.4 testimony was

consistent and corroborated the other witnesses statements

reinforcing the prosecution's case and establishing the guilt of

appellants Nos.1 to 3 and a juvenile beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus,

his unbiased and detailed account of the incident added significant

weight to the evidence presented before this Court.

22. According to the evidence of PW.6 (E. Lingaiah) who operated a

liquor shop provided a comprehensive and detailed statement of the

events that on 13.07.2011 which played a crucial role in

understanding the motive behind the tragic incident. On that day, the

deceased and the appellant No.1 visited PW's.6 shop to purchase I.D.

liquor a common activity for both men who were regular patrons. After

consuming the liquor together, the appellant No.1 realized that his

umbrella was missing and initially inquired with PW.6 who had no

knowledge of the whereabouts of the umbrella. Frustrated, the

appellant No.1 left the shop but soon returned visibly agitated and

accusatory. He began to blame the deceased for hiding the umbrella

and this accusation rapidly escalated into a heated verbal

confrontation and appellant No.1 used abusive language towards the

deceased who responded with equally harsh words leading to an

intense argument. PW.6 intervened urging them to leave his premises

in an attempt to calm the situation. Despite his efforts, the conflict did

not cease both men eventually departed to their respective homes, but

the animosity continued to simmer. Later that evening, the deceased

armed with an axe went to the appellant No.1 house and began

shouting, abusing and challenging the appellant No.1 to come out of

the house which further aggravated the hostility. After this

confrontation, the deceased returned to his home. Further PW.6 did

not witness the subsequent fatal attack on the deceased but confirmed

the significant quarrel at his shop over the missing umbrella. This

initial altercation, as described by PW.6 provided critical context to the

motive behind the fatal assault corroborating the prosecution's

narrative. His testimony highlighted the escalating tension between

the deceased and the appellant No.1 which ultimately led to the brutal

attack on the deceased later that night. PW.6's detailed account

underscored the importance of the quarrel as a key factor in the tragic

chain of events making his statement a pivotal piece of evidence in the

case.

23. In addition to the aforesaid depositions of PWs.1 to 4 and 6,

it would also be relevant to take note of the evidence of PW.10, the

Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination identified several

anti-mortem injuries, which are as under:

1. A depressed fracture about 7 x 3 x 1 cm over the left parietal bone of the scalp.

2. A contusion about 7 x 3 inches on the left shoulder joint.

3. A cut injury of about 4 x 5 cm on the pinna of the left ear.

Upon opening the scalp, PW.10 observed that brain matter protruded

from the meninges through the wound on the left side of the parietal

region and concluded that the cause of death was due to shock and

haemorrhage resulting from the head injury. He confirmed that injury

No.1 could be caused by an axe, injury No.2 by an axe or stick and

injury No.3 potentially by a fall on the ground. Although during the

cross-examination he acknowledged that injury No.1 could occur from

a fall on a stone from a height of 5 to 6 feet, his primary testimony

aligned with the eye-witness accounts of PWs.1 to 4 substantiating

that the injuries were inflicted by an attack rather than an accidental

fall.

24. Upon careful examination of the evidences and considering the

detailed testimonies presented by both the counsel conclude that the

initial conviction under Section 302 of the IPC which pertains to

murder is altered to Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC dealing with

culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This decision was

influenced by several critical factors. Primarily, this Court recognized

that the incident stemmed from an immediate provocation, a quarrel

over a missing umbrella at a liquor shop which escalated rapidly. The

evidence suggested that the appellant did not have a premeditated

intent to kill the deceased but rather acted in the heat of the moment

following the heated argument. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses

including those of PWs.1 to 4 consistently described the attack as a

spontaneous act of violence rather than a calculated murder.

25. Additionally, the medical evidence provided by PW.10 detailing

the injuries and cause of death supported the narrative of a sudden

and unplanned assault on the deceased. This Court also took into

account the counsel for the appellants arguments about the

deceased's questionable character and past criminal activities which

are not justifying the attack provided context to the provocation. In

light of these considerations this Court determines that the actions of

the appellants fall under the purview of Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC.

Further, this Court revises the sentence to reflect this reclassification

acknowledging the gravity of the offense while also considering the

mitigating circumstances.

26. Therefore, the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC

is set aside. However, the appellants having found guilty of the offence

under Section 304 Part I of IPC stands convicted for the said offence

and are accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

ten (10) years with fine of Rs.2000/- as awarded by the Trial Court. In

the event, if the fine amount is not deposited within thirty (30) days,

the appellants would have to undergo further simple imprisonment for

one (01) month.

27. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part.

28. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

____________________________ SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU, J Date: 04.07.2024 GSD