Telangana High Court
Talari Naresh, R.R.Dist. vs The State Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. on 4 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1111 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)
The appellant was found guilty by the learned Special Sessions
Judge for the offence under Section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, 1989.
Questioning the said conviction, present appeal was filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and the only eye-witness
supporting the case of the prosecution. PW.-8-S.I of Police having
received information about the deceased being attacked and undergoing
treatment, went to the Government hospital at Tandur where PW.1 was
present and also her deceased son being attended by doctors. When
questioned by PW.8, PW.1 stated that her son Shivshankar took the
younger sister of the appellant namely Sivamala, three months ago and
came back the next day. The appellant harboured grudge against the
deceased for taking his sister for a day without informing anyone. On
12.05.2013, the deceased went to his village to visit PW.1. PW.3-friend
of the deceased and the deceased started from the house on the
motorcycle to attend a wedding. At a distance, the appellant threw
stones at the deceased, as such, PW.3 immediately went back and
informed PW.1 about the incident. PW.3 took her to the place where the
appellant was beating the deceased. PW.1 intervened and appellant hit
PW.1 on the left eye and pushed her aside, abusing her in filthy
language. The deceased was hit with a stone, kicked with legs by the
appellant, and was badly injured. PW.1 informed her brother PW.2 and
others who shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Tandur.
As already stated, the Police having received information, PW.8 went
and recorded the statement of PW.1 on 12.05.2015, which was
registered as FIR.
4. The deceased while undergoing treatment died on 13.05.2015.
Autopsy was conducted by PW.7 at 2.30 p.m. on the same day. PW.7
found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
"i) Contusion over left temporal region of skull of size 2 x 1
c.m. with fracture of temporal bone
ii) Left black eye present.
iii) Laceration over chin of size 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.ms.
iv) Contusion over right side of forehead of 1 x 0.5 cms.
v) Contusion over right forearm of size of 3 x 2 cms. fracture
upper end radius.
vi) contusion over chest wall of size 2 x 1 cms.
vii) Laceration of size 3 x 2 x 0.5 cms over right grate toe with
fracture metatarsal.
viii) Laceration of size of 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over right lower end of
radius fracture."
5. Further PW.7 stated that on opening the body, he found the
following internal injury:
i) Intracranial hemorrhage in pontine and temporal regions.
The reason of death was massive intracranial hemorrhage secondary to
head injury leading to cardio respiratory arrest, according to the
opinion of PW.7.
6. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis
of the testimony of PW.1 who is an eye-witness and mother of the
deceased.
7. Three grounds were raised by the counsel for the appellant:
i) PW.1 is the mother of the deceased and an interested witness. Her
evidence is not corroborated by PW.3-Narender who allegedly informed
her about the incident and took PW.1 to the scene. PW.3 turned hostile,
as such, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed.
ii) The injuries that were found on the deceased could be caused by an
accident as admitted by PW.7. Since the death was result of an
accident, the question of convicting the appellant for causing injuries
on the basis of PW.1's evidence is incorrect.
iii) The doctor who treated PW.1 was not examined. As such, Ex.P15-
wound certificate of PW.1 cannot be considered as corroboration to
PW.1's evidence.
8. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. She gave statement Ex.P1 to
PW.8, who recorded the statement in the hospital. On the basis of the
said complaint, FIR was registered at 2.00 p.m. and the same was sent
to the jurisdictional magistrate. In the complaint and also before Court,
PW.1 narrated that both PW.3 and her son left the house on the
motorbike to attend a wedding. Immediately, thereafter, PW.3 came
back and informed PW.1 that the appellant was assaulting the
deceased and PW.3 took PW.1 to the scene. There, PW.1 witnessed the
beating by the appellant on the chest, head and other parts of the body
of deceased with a stone.
9. PW.1 also stated that she was injured on the left eye by the
appellant. PW.1 was treated in the Government Hospital at Tandur
where the deceased died while being treated. Ex.P15-wound certificate
reflects that PW.1 received swelling over left eye. Though, the doctor
who issued wound certificate was not examined, it will not have any
adverse impact on the prosecution case. PW.1 stated that when she
intervened, while the appellant was attacking her son, the appellant
injured her on the eye. Ex.P15-wound certificate corroborates with the
version of PW.1 about her being present when the incident had taken
place and that the appellant had assaulted her when she intervened
while the appellant attacked the deceased. It is not the case of defence
that Ex.P15 was fabricated. Non examination of the doctor who issued
Ex.P15 is of no consequence, in the present facts of the case.
10. The argument of the counsel that since PW.3 who had taken
PW.1 to the scene was declared hostile, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be
considered, cannot be accepted. Though, PW.3 had taken PW.1 to the
scene, however, PW.1 had witnessed the appellant assaulting the
deceased. As already discussed, PW.1's intervention resulted in the
appellant beating her on the eye. She received an injury on the eye and
she was treated. The hostility of PW.3 in the present case has no
bearing on the reliable and consistent testimony of PW.1.
11. As seen from the injuries, the deceased received 8 injuries and the
doctor also found intracranial hemorrhage resulting in cardio
respiratory arrest and consequent death. The manner in which the
appellant had caused injuries, the intent on the part of the appellant to
commit murder is apparent. Further, as evident from the
circumstances, the appellant was waiting to attack the deceased. It is
not the case, that there was any quarrel, pursuant to which the
appellant assaulted the deceased.
12. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned
Special Sessions Judge, which are reasonable, probable and based on
record. In the said circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the
finding of the learned Special Sessions Judge, in convicting the
accused.
13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 04.02.2025
tk
