Sapavath Bichiya, Nalgonda Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp And Anr.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 4721 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4721 Tel
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Sapavath Bichiya, Nalgonda Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp And Anr., on 10 April, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                AND
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1133 of 2017 and 1278 of 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

Criminal Appeal No.1133 of 2017 is filed by the father of the

deceased (PW.1), aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.11.2016,

passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, in

S.C.No.21 of 2015, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the

accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted

him under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Criminal Appeal No.1278 of 2016 is filed by the accused,

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the VIII additional Sessions

Judge, Miryalaguda, in SC.No.21 of 2015 dated 28.11.2016, under

Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine

of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 304-II IPC.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1278 of

2016, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1133 of 2017,

and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State.

4. According to the case of the prosecution, on 15.10.2014,

PW.1, who is the father of the deceased, his wife, wife of the

accused, the accused and PW.3 were present on the disputed land

for the purpose of partitioning and fixing the boundaries of the said

land. PW.1, the accused, and PW.4 are brothers. There was a

quarrel while the boundaries were being marked.

S.Kishan/deceased, who is the son of PW.1, went there and tried to

intervene, upon which the accused picked up a boulder and hit the

deceased on his head, as a result of which he fell and received the

following injuries:

i. Contusion over left ear auricle 2 cm x 2 cms.

ii. Contusion behind the left ear 3 cm x 2 cms.

iii. Scalp hematoma in left side of occipital region 5 cms. x 3 cms.

iv. A large hematoma is extending from left temporal lobe to occipital lobe 12 x 10 cms.

v. Cerebellar hematoma is present on left side 4 cms. x 4 cms.

5. PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint. The

said complaint was registered and Police took up the investigation,

arrested the accused, and thereafter filed a charge sheet for the

offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused relying on

the evidence of PW.1, who is the father of the deceased, and PW.2,

the brother of the deceased, who narrated that, on the date of the

incident, the accused beat the deceased with a stone.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that,

when PW.11-postmortem doctor was questioned, he stated that

injuries Nos.1 to 5 were possible if a person falls from a height and

on hard surface. The deceased intervened in the quarrel that was

going on, and fell on the ground, resulting in injuries and his death.

Since the fall of the deceased was accidental, the learned counsel

prays that the conviction under Section 304-II is liable to be set

aside.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the deceased submits that the act of the accused in causing injury

with a boulder is deliberate, and his intention to commit the murder

of the deceased is apparent. The injury was on the head, which is a

vital organ, as such, the accused has to be convicted under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the learned Sessions Judge

erroneously convicted the accused under Section 304-II of the

Indian Penal Code.

9. The fact that the deceased, PW.1, PW.4, and the accused are

closely related is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that PW.1,

along with the wife of the accused and PW.3, demarcated their lands

by fixing boundaries. There were heated arguments and a quarrel

about the fixing of boundaries between PW.1 and the accused.

When the deceased went there and tried to intervene, the accused

picked up a boulder and hit the deceased on his head during the

said heated argument.

10. It cannot be said in the present facts, that there was

premeditation on the part of the accused to cause the death of the

deceased, who is his elder brother's son. Admittedly, there were

heated arguments and a quarrel regarding the fixing of boundaries.

11. Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC is extracted below:

"Exception 4: When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner."

12. The premeditation can be gathered from the facts of the case.

In the present case, as already discussed, the incident occurred

when there was a quarrel between the brothers regarding the fixing

of boundaries to partition their land. It cannot be said that there

was premeditation or that the assault was pre planned. Even

according to the witnesses, the deceased had intervened between

PW.1 and the accused, who were fighting for fixing of boundaries.

There is absolutely no ground to find an error in the learned

Sessions Judge convicting the accused under Section 304-II of IPC.

There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction.

13. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2014

and the manner in which the incident took place, further, even