Telangana High Court
M.Srinu vs The State Of Telangana on 17 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2869 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the
conviction recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.110 of 2017 dated 29.01.2018, convicting
the appellant under Sections 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal
Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar
Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri M.Vivekananda
Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, late Bokka
Kondaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), was the father
of PWs.1 and 2, and after the death of his wife, he was residing in a
house at Nawabpet. The deceased was occasionally taken care of by
PW.3, the daughter of PW.1, who was studying in Nawabpet. Since
the deceased was selling arrack illegally and was keeping some male
consumers with him in his house during night times, PW.3
preferred to sleep in the house of her relatives in Nawabpet.
4. The appellant, along with PWs.5 to 7, was a regular customer
of the deceased, and three months prior to the death of the
deceased on 01.02.2015, the appellant committed theft of
Rs.4,000/- from the deceased, and the deceased asked the
appellant not to come to his house thereafter. However, on
01.02.2015 at about 7.00 p.m., when PWs.5 to 7 came to the house
of the deceased to consume arrack, the appellant too came with a
request to the deceased to allow him to consume arrack, but the
deceased chided him for having committed theft of cash from his
house. The deceased refused to give arrack to the appellant at that
time. PWs.5 to 7 consumed arrack and left for their houses. At
about 9.00 P.M., the appellant again approached the deceased and
requested him in several ways to give arrack, and the appellant also
preferred to sleep in the house of the deceased. The deceased asked
PW.3 to arrange beds for him and the appellant, and asked her to
leave to sleep at the relatives' house.
5. The appellant, having found the deceased in possession of
cash of Rs.850/-, tried to snatch away the same from the deceased
and, when the deceased resisted, the appellant squeezed his
testicles and also trampled his scrotum with his legs. As a result,
the deceased died of haemorrhage and blunt injury to the testicles.
The appellant decamped with the cash of Rs.850/- belonging to the
deceased. At about 5.30 A.M., the appellant again visited the house
of the deceased to find out whether the deceased was alive or not,
and on finding the deceased lying dead, the appellant, suspecting
some blood stains on his clothes, immediately went to a nearby
public tap opposite the house and washed his hands and clothes.
PW.4, the immediate neighbour to the house of the deceased, found
the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased and washing
his clothes and hands. Soon thereafter, PW.3 went to the house of
the deceased as usual and, to her surprise, she found the deceased
lying dead. PW.3 immediately informed PWs.1 and 2 ,who are the
daughters of the deceased, and PW.11, who is the husband of PW.2.
After few hours, all of them reached the house of the deceased and
found the dead body of the deceased.
6. PW.1, having come to know about the facts through PWs.3
and 4, lodged Ex.P1-report with PW.14, the then Sub-Inspector of
Police, Nawabpet P.S., at about 12.30 p.m., on 02.02.2015, and
based on the same, PW.14 registered Ex.P15-FIR against the
appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. PW.13, the then
Inspector of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Circle, took up the
investigation and, upon visiting the scene of offence, observed the
scene of offence under Ex.P12-crime details form-cum-rough sketch
prepared in the presence of PWs.8 and 9. He also conducted an
inquest over the dead body from 1.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. in the
presence of the same panch witnesses under Ex.P14-inquest report.
The dead body of the deceased was shifted to the District Hospital,
Mahabubnagar, where PW.10 conducted an autopsy over the dead
body in the mortuary of the said hospital and collected the viscera
and hyoid bone to be sent to the FSL, Hyderabad, for further
investigations. As per Ex.P8-report, received from the FSL,
Hyderabad, no poisonous substance was found in the viscera, and
as per Ex.P10, no fracture of hyoid bone was found. PW.10 issued
Ex.P9-final opinion, thereby holding that the death of the deceased
was due to haemorrhage and blunt injury to the testicles. On
09.02.2015, based on reliable information, PW.13 apprehended the
accused at his house in Nawabpet and requested PW.12-the VRO.,
and LW.12-G.Gopal, another V.R.O., to question the appellant.
Accordingly, they questioned the appellant. The appellant confessed
to his guilt and produced MO.1-cash of Rs.450/-, which he
confessed to have retained out of the cash of Rs.850/- stolen from
the deceased after committing the murder of the deceased, stating
that he had spent an amount of Rs.400/- for his needs. MO.1 was
seized by PW.13 from the possession of the appellant under the
cover of Ex.P11-confession-cum-seizure panchanama, drafted at
about 9.30 a.m. The appellant was brought to the police station and
thereafter produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Special Mobile, Mahabubnagar, for judicial custody.
Subsequently, the appellant was enlarged on bail granted by the
Sessions Court. On transfer of PW.13, PW.15, who was his
immediate successor, took up the further investigation and
produced MOs.2 to 4-clothes of the deceased, which were seized by
PW.10 at the time of conducting the autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased, before the Court. Upon completion of the
investigation, he filed the charge sheet, thereby alleging that the
appellant committed the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 380 of IPC.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, found that it was the appellant who had caused the death
of the deceased. Reliance was placed on the evidence of PWs.2 and
4, and further, the recovery of the amount from the appellant.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the 'last seen' theory is not sufficient to conclude that it was
the appellant who had committed the murder. Unless the 'last seen'
circumstance is corroborated with other evidence, it cannot be
inferred that the appellant committed the murder. Even according
to PW.4, she only saw the appellant coming out of the house of the
deceased and washing his hands at 5.30 A.M. However, PW.3 states
that she found the dead body of the deceased at 5.00 A.M. Even
according to the prosecution, the deceased was selling illicitly
brewed liquor to the villagers, and several customers used to sleep
in the said house. It cannot be said that the appellant was the
person who committed the murder, as it could have been any of the
customers.
9. Alternatively, the learned counsel submits that the injury was
caused to the testicles and the cause of death was Cardio
Respiratory Failure as a result of blunt injury to the testicles.
10. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v.
Shivalingaiah alias Handigidda 1, held that squeezing of the
testicles by the accused would fall within the offence under section
325 of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
1988 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 533
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that, based
on the Judgment of Shivalingaiah's case (supra 1) the
Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Mohamed
Nazeer alisas Babu 2 held ,based on the facts of the case, that the
injury caused to the deceased by kicking on their private parts
would be an offence under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would
submit that the act of the appellant in kicking the deceased on his
testicles would reflect his knowledge, and the learned Sessions
Judge had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
13. The appellant was seen coming out of the house of the
deceased by PW.4. PW.3, who is the grand-daughter of the
deceased, went to his house early in the morning. At that time, she
found the deceased dead. In the complaint filed by PW.1, who is the
daughter of the deceased, she clearly stated that PW.3 was staying
along with the deceased in his house, and also mentioned the
information given by PW.4 about the appellant coming out of the
house of the deceased in the morning just before the deceased was
found dead.
(2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 444
14. The appellant claims that he has been falsely implicated.
However, the circumstances which were narrated by the prosecution
witnesses at the earliest point of time are convincing and as follows
i) the appellant being seen coming out of the house of the deceased;
ii) the names of PWs.3 and 4 being mentioned in the complaint; and
iii) the deceased was found dead with injuries to his testicles, when
PW.3 went inside after the appellant came out of the home.
15. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found that the
death was on account of a blunt injury to the testicles resulting in
Cardio Respiratory Failure.
16. Basing reliance on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Mohamed Nazeer's case (supra 2), the injuries that were
caused by the appellant would fall under Section 304 part II of IPC.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is converted to Section
304 Part II of IPC.
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant was in jail for 5 ½ years before being released on bail.
18. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there
are no other questionable antecedents and the appellant is not
involved in any other criminal cases.
19. Keeping in view that the appellant has dependents to look
after, and there being no other cases against him, we deem it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to 5 ½ years,
i.e., the period already undergone by him.
20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, reducing the
sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 17.04.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2869 of 2018
Dt. 17.04.2025
tk
