Telangana High Court

Ryapan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                              AND
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3117 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, Adilabad,

in S.C.No.237 of 2014 dated 04.10.2017, for the offence under

Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC, and sentence to undergo life

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence

under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant,

and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police on 29.01.2014 at

9.00 A.M. In the complaint, he stated that the appellant joined as

a Farm Servant for working in the fields of Chinnolla Ganga Reddy

s/o.Ramreddy (PW.6). However, he stopped working midway. The

appellant took the salary of Rs.25,000/-. The younger brother of

PW.6, i.e., Chinnolla Venkat Reddy (deceased), insisted that the

appellant should pay back the salary amount that was given

earlier since he stopped working midway. For the said reason,

there was a quarrel between them. On 29.01.2014, in the morning

hours at about 7.00 A.M., when the deceased was sitting along

with Narapallu Mahesh Goud (PW.2), Mukutwar Chandrakanth

(PW.3), and Velamala Rajareddy (PW.4) by the side of fire, the

appellant came there, stabbed the deceased on his back, and fled.

The deceased was immediately shifted to the Government Area

Hospital, Bhainsa, and from there to the Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. The deceased died on account of the injuries. On

30.01.2014, PW.16 conducted autopsy on the dead body.

According to the Autopsy doctor, he found one ante-mortem

injury, i.e., sutured injury 3 Cms. length placed transversely below

middle of left soapula. On opening of suture stab injury with clean

cut margins measuring 3 Cms. x 1.5 Cms entering into left chest

cavity seen. On opening of chest injury to base of posterior surface

of left lung with 500 ml of blood in plural cavity seen.

4. PW.16 opined that the cause of death was due to stab injury

to the left lung. Ex.P5 is the Postmortem report.

5. The Investigating Officer-PW.18 arrested the appellant on

02.02.2014 and conducted interrogation in the presence of

PWs.13 and 14, wherein the appellant informed that he had kept

the knife-M.O.1, which was used to stab the deceased, at the

outskirts of Malegaon village. At the instance of the accused, MO.1

was seized. All the material objects were recovered from the scene

and seized at the instance of the appellant for the purpose of FSL

examination. The FSL report revealed that the material objects

contained human blood.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence of

PWs.2 to 4, who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, recorded

the conviction of the appellant.

7. The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the incident happened in the month of January,

which is the winter season and at 7.00 A.M. there would be no

light. Even according to the witnesses, the person who stabbed the

deceased came, stabbed him, and fled. In the said circumstances,

there is no chance of any of the witnesses identifying the

appellant. For the said reason, the counsel prayed to reverse the

Judgment of conviction.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit

that three eye-witnesses have categorically stated about the stab

by the appellant. The eye-witnesses were sitting along with the

deceased when the incident happened. Nothing was elicited in the

cross-examination to discredit the evidence of PWs.2 to 4.

9. The incident happened in the morning around 7 A.M. PW.1

went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint within 2

hours, i.e., by 9.00 A.M. In the complaint, he narrated that while

the deceased was sitting along with PWs.2, 3, and 4, the appellant

stabbed the deceased from his back and escaped.

10. PWs.2, 3, and 4 have narrated about the incident. All the

witnesses have stated about the appellant working for PW.6 and

that there was a quarrel for the reason of the appellant taking

Rs.25,000/- to work under PW.6, however, the appellant stopped

working midway. For the said reason, the deceased insisted that

the appellant should return the amount given to him in advance.

The argument of the learned counsel that there was no possibility

of the eye-witnesses witnessing the incident cannot be accepted.

All of them belong to the same village. It is 7.00 A.M. in the

morning during the last days of January. Even according to the

witnesses, there was no fog or mist on the date of the incident. At

7.00 A.M., there would be daylight. Since the appellant belonged

to the same village, the identification by PWs.2 to 4 cannot be

disbelieved.

11. According to the prosecution, the deceased had insisted that

the appellant return the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was paid

by PW.6. There was a quarrel. On the date of the incident, while

the deceased was sitting along with PWs.2 to 4, the appellant went

there, stabbed once from the back, and fled from the scene.

12. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Mohd. Rafiq alias

Kallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1, held as follows:

" The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide of either description, punishable under Section 304 IPC, has engaged the attention of courts in India for over one-and-a-half century, since the enactment of the IPC. A welter of case law, on the aforesaid aspect exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term "likely" in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person. Section 300 IPC which defines "murder", however refrains from the use of the term 'likely', which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. Such

(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706

difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes."

13. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Pulicherla Nagaraju

alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P. 2, held as follows:

"29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters -- plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of

(2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 444

the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."

14. Admittedly, there was one stab injury and the appellant fled.

Though there was no provocation or a quarrel or a fight between

them, however, the incident happened for the reason of there

being a quarrel earlier, in which the deceased insisted that the

appellant return the money.

15. A single blow can form the basis to convict a person for

murder. However, in the present circumstances, when the

appellant had gone there, stabbed the deceased, and fled from the

scene, the act of the appellant falls within Section 304 Part-I of the

Indian Penal Code.

16. For the aforesaid discussion, the conviction under Section

302 of IPC is converted to Section 304 Part-I of IPC and the