Telangana High Court
Munugala Satya Narayana And Another vs State Of Ts., Rep. By P.P. on 6 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1362 of 2017 and 1621 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.1362 of 2017 is filed by appellants/A1 and A2
and Crl.A.No.1621 of 2017 is filed by A3, questioning their conviction
under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.10 of 2015, dated
28.07.2017 passed by the principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga
Reddy.
2. Since both the appeals are arising out of same judgment of trial
Court, both the appeals are disposed off by way of this Common
Judgment.
3. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants/A1 and A2 in Criminal Appeal No.1362 of 2017, Sri
K.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A3 in
Criminal Appeal No.1621 of 2017.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the defacto
complainant went to the police station on 27.02.2014 at 9.00 p.m. In the
said complaint, he narrated that he came to know that his brother-in-law
namely Mohd. Bikku Sab (deceased) was injured by some persons.
Immediately, P.W.1 went to the spot and found that the deceased was
bleeding. When questioned by P.W.1, the deceased informed that A1, A2
and A3 beat him since he was objecting to take away the neem branches.
Since the deceased questioned them, A1 beat him with stick on his head
and A2 and A3 abused in filthy language and also assaulted with hands.
5. The deceased was taken to the hospital. While undergoing
treatment, he died on 07.03.2014 at Gandhi Hospital. The body was sent
for postmortem examination. P.W.12 conducted autopsy and following
injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
"1. "C" shaped surgical craniotomy wound present on the skull on
right with sutures. On cut section evidence of right temporal parietal
craniotomy noted with evidence of subdural hematoma and
subarachnoid hemorrhage noted on right cerebral hemispheres.
2 "C" shaped surgical craniotomy wound present on the scalp on
left side with sutures. On cut section evidence left parietal craniotomy
noted with evidence of subdural hematoma and subarachnoid
hemorrhage noted in left cerebral hemisphere.
3. Scalp contusion present diffursely all over the scalp.
4. Contusion on left side of the neck 10 x 10 cm noted.
5. About 100 mg of blood clot present in the base of the brain."
P.W.12 concluded that the death was on account of 'complications
of head injury'.
6. The police filed charge sheet against three appellants for the offence
under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.
7. The evidence against the appellants is that of P.W.3 and P.W.5.
P.W.1 filed complaint and he stated that he came to know about the
deceased being beaten by some persons. However, the name of P.W.5
was not mentioned in the complaint. P.W.5 was cited as an eye witness
to the incident. P.W.5 stated that he was working under the deceased
and on the date of the incident, he saw the appellants beating from a
distance.
8. In the cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that the scene of offence
was at a distance of 2 kms from where he was standing. The version
given by P.W.5 cannot be believed firstly for the reason of his name not
being mentioned in the complaint that he had witnessed the incident and
secondly, it is not possible for a person to view what is happening at a
distance of 2 kms. The incident happened around 7.00 p.m, which would
be dark in any season.
9. According to the evidence of P.W.1, he went to the scene and found
the deceased lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. The deceased
informed him that it was the appellants 1 to 3 who assaulted him and
abused him. Specifically, it was narrated that A1 was the person who
beat the deceased with sticks, while A2 and A3 assaulted the deceased
with fists.
10. The inconsistency in the case of the prosecution is that the
statement of the deceased was not recorded by the police officials.
Though the deceased was undergoing treatment for a period of nearly
eight days in between 27.02.2014 and 07.03.2014, however, no attempts
were made by any of the police officials of the concerned police station to
record his statement. No reasons are also given as to why no attempt was
made to record his statement.
11. The death was after a period of eight days of the alleged assault.
The opinion of the Doctor is that the death was on account of
complications of the head injury. It was not stated specifically by the
treating Doctor that the death was a direct consequence of the injuries
that were received on the said day. What was meant by the
'Complications' was not clearly stated by the Doctor nor elicited by the
prosecution during the course of trial. The 'Complications' is vague word
to be stated. 'Complication' could be due to various factors. The
prosecution ought to have proved conclusively that the death was a
direct consequence of the injuries.
12. Keeping in view that the said infirmities, it cannot be said that the
death which occurred eight days after the incident, can be directly
attributed to the alleged assault. Accordingly, conviction under Section
302 r/w 34 of IPC is set aside against the appellants. However, A1 is
convicted under Section 304-I of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years. A2 and A3 are sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section
326 IPC.
13. Since the appellants/A1 to A3 were released on bail, the concerned
Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellants and send them to
prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period
if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
14. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 06.02.2025
kvs
