Telangana High Court
Borlakunta Rajeswari vs Manchinella Surya Babu And 3 Others on 13 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1349 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant who is the victim
and defacto complainant, aggrieved by the judgment dated
07.08.2017 in S.C.No.468 of 2015, on the file of Principal
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The accused were convicted for
the offences under Sections 324 and 304-II of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 3 months and 6 months imprisonment,
respectively. The appellant seeks enhancement of the
sentence of imprisonment.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun
Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State.
3. A-3 died during the pendency of this appeal. As such,
the appeal is heard only against A-1 and A-2.
4. According to the case of prosecution, the accused had a
vacant site of 0-04guntas on the backside of the house of
deceased, namely, Borlakunta Narsaiah. Narsaiah was living
along with his brother (complainant/P.W.1), appellant herein,
who is the wife of deceased and their children. The branches
of the trees that were grown in the vacant site of the accused
were hanging on to the house of deceased and in rainy
season, snakes were crawling upon the branches and falling
into their house. Deceased requested the accused to remove
the branches of the trees explaining the problem they were
facing. But the accused did not cut the branches. On
10.09.2014, both the deceased and his brother Kanakaiah
requested A-1 to A-3 to cut the branches. In the evening
around 5 p.m., accused picked up quarrel with the deceased
and P.W.1. On the same day, around 9 p.m., accused
attacked the deceased with sticks. The deceased was
immediately taken to the hospital and while undergoing
treatment, he died on the next day.
5. Learned Sessions Judge having gone through the
evidence, found that the offence falls under Section 304-II of
IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
6. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge on the basis
of record appears reasonable. However, the sentence passed
by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 324 of IPC to
undergo imprisonment of 3 months and under Section 304-II
of IPC to undergo 6 months imprisonment, appears to be
meagre.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/victim/wife of deceased would submit that the
appellant has now two sons who are aged around 14 and 16
years and dependent on the appellant herein. The appellant
inturn is dependant on her parents for survival.
8. A-1 has two children and A-2 also has two children. They
are also now aged around 16 and 17 years. Both the
appellant and accused have to take care of their dependants
who are teenage children.
9. Keeping in view the present circumstances, since A-1
and A-2 have children to take care off and the incident
happened 10 years ago, we deem it appropriate to grant
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) to be
paid to the appellant by A-1 and A-2 within a period of 3
months from the date of this order. The said amount shall be
deposited before the concerned Magistrate Court by A-1 and
A-2 @ Rs.3,00,000/-each. The Magistrate shall summon the
appellant herein who is examined during trial as P.W.7 and
the amount shall be handed over to P.W.7. Failure to pay
compensation within 3 months as directed, A-1 and A-2 shall
each undergo default sentence of one year imprisonment.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 13.02.2025
dv
