Telangana High Court
Mandula Narayana, Medak Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 19 November, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
05.02.2016 in S.C.No.50 of 2014, on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Medak, Sangareddy, convicting the appellant
for the offences under Sections 302, 448 and 504 r/w. 34 of
IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Mrs.Shalini
Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on
20.05.2013 around 6 a.m., when P.W.1 was sweeping the
front yard of their house, A-2 allegedly threw stool/dregs of
her children in the front yard of the house. When P.W.1
admonished A-2, heated argument took place between P.W.1
and the appellant. The deceased who is the son of P.W.1
intervened and pacified between them. Both of them went
away. Thereafter, A-1 to A-3 allegedly trespassed into the
house, A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the deceased and A-1
beat with an axe on the head of the deceased resulting in
grevious injury. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital.
On 21.05.2013 i.e., the next day, complaint was filed by
P.W.1 narrating the incident regarding altercation that took
place between P.W.1 and A-2. It was also stated in the
complaint that A-1 to A-3 trespassed into the house and A-1
beat the deceased with an axe resulting in grevious injury.
4. The complaint/Ex.P.1 was initially registered for the
offence under Sections 448 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. While
undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 23.05.2013 i.e.,
three days after the incident. The Section of law was altered
to Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC. The Police visited scene of
offence and conducted scene of offence panchnama.
Thereafter, inquest proceedings were also concluded. The
dead body was sent for post mortem examination. After
concluding the post mortem examination, post mortem
Doctor/P.W.12 has given report that 'head injury' was the
cause of death.
5. Having concluded the investigation, the Police filed
charge sheet for the offence under Sections 448, 504 and 302
r/w. 34 of IPC against all the three accused.
6. Learned Sessions Judge found that the complicity of
A-2 ad A-3 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution and accordingly, acquitted A-2 and A-3.
However, A-1 was convicted for the offence under Section 302
of IPC.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that the alleged attack on the
deceased was on account of altercation that took place
between P.W.1 and A-2, which is admitted. The injury that
was received is one cut injury on the head. Further, it is not
disputed by the prosecution that only one injury was caused
by A-1. In the said circumstances, the offence at most would
fall under Section 304-II of IPC, since there was no
premeditation or intent on the part of A-1 and the alleged
incident took place pursuant to altercation that took place in
between P.W.1 and A-2.
8. Learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh vs. State of
Punjab 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing
with the case found that there was one injury which was
inflicted with a knife. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that offence committed would fall
under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced the accused to 5
years of imprisonment. Learned senior counsel also relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hallu And
Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2. The accused therein
was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for
assaulting with an axe. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
said case, while considering the evidence on record found
four lacerated wounds and two bruises. According to eye
witnesses, two men attacked with lathis, spears and axes. In
the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found
that there was no deliberate attack using sharp side of the
axe and accordingly, conviction was reversed for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC. He also relied on another
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Lal And Others
vs. State of Chhattisgarh 3 and argued that when there is
unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, it casts any
(1983) 2 SCC 342
(1974) 4 SCC 300
(2023) 10 SCC 471
amount of doubt on prosecution's case being correct. In the
present case, there is a delay of 36 hours which was not
explained. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of
the Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Tiwari vs. State of
U.P. with Indrajit Mishra and Another vs. State of U.P 4,
wherein the said Court was dealing with the case where there
was a delay in filing FIR, as such, benefit of doubt was
extended to the appellants.
9. In the case on hand, A-1 assaulted the deceased with
an axe pursuant to altercation that took place. He gave one
blow on the head. The said fact of there being an altercation
and pursuant to which A-1 assaulting the deceased is not
disputed by the prosecution.
10. The deceased after receiving injury was taken to the
hospital and was treated for three days, thereafter, he died.
In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there was
intent on the part of the appellant to cause death was
determinative. The deceased survived for 3 days and while
undergoing treatment, he died. In the said circumstances,
the offence falls under Section 304-II of IPC as observed by
2021 SCC Online 193
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh' s case (supra 1),
similar are the facts on hand.
11. The conviction under Section 302 of IPC is altered to
304-II of IPC. The conviction under Section 448 against the
appellant is sustained. The appellant is sentenced to
undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Since it is
informed that the appellant has already undergone more
than 7 years of imprisonment, no further orders are required.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
________________
K. SARATH, J
Date: 19.11.2024
dv
