Telangana High Court
Jillela , Kotha Venkat Reddy, Mbnr. ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P. on 19 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.315 OF 2011
ORDER:
1 This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is
filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.02.2011 passed in
Crl.A.No.113 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, whereunder the learned
Additional District Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed
against the petitioner in S.C.No.23 of 2005 by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool for the offences punishable under Sections
304-II and 323 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
offence under Section 304-II IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the
offence under Section 323 IPC.
2 The gravamen of the charge is that the Inspector of Police,
Jadcherla filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 323 r/w 34 IPC basing on the
complaint lodged by one Upparipally Anjamma of Kodparthy village of
Thimmajipet Mandal. The accusation was that on 06.02.2002 at 7.00 pm
while she was returning home along with her husband Upparapally
Chinna Jangi Reddy to their house from their fields and when they
reached near the house of one K.Venkat Reddy on the road, suddenly
the petitioner and his wife A.2 and their nephew A.3 attacked them
abusing them in foul and filthy language and beat them with hands and
legs on the premise that she objected the driving of double bullock cart
of A.1 through their fields. On hearing the cries, Boya Nagamma and
Petla Sathyamma intervened and separated them. Basing on the above
complaint, a case in Cr.No.7 of 2002 under Sections 341, 323 and 504
r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into. The injured was shifted
to Government hospital, Mahbubnagar where he succumbed to the
injuries. After completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against
the petitioner and the other two accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 304, 504 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC. After the case was
made over to the trial Court charges under Sections 304, 504 and 323
r/w 34 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained
to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16
and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. No oral or documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nagarkurnool, having appreciated the evidence available on
record, both oral and documentary, found all the accused guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 323 IPC and accordingly
convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five
years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and further
sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under
Section 323 r/w 34 IPC, however, acquitted them of the offence
punishable under Section 504 IPC.
4 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.2009 of the trial Court, the
petitioner and the other accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.113 of
2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar. The learned appellate court, having re-
appreciated the entire evidence available on record, by judgment dated
07.02.2011 modified the judgment of the trial Court by acquitting the
accused Nos.2 and 3 of the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC,
but confirmed their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable
under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC. However, the appellate court confirmed
the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner - A.1 by the trial
Court on both counts. Hence the present revision by the petitioner -
A.1.
5 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned
appellate court having held that there is no intention on the part of the
accused Nos.2 and 3 or knowledge that it may likely to cause death of
the deceased and acquitted them, ought to have given the same benefit
to the petitioner also. He further submitted that the doctor who
conducted the postmortem examination over the deceased was not
examined and hence the postmortem examination report was not
proved. It is his further contention that both the courts below failed to
appreciate that abrasion on abdomen of the deceased is not having any
corresponding internal injury. He further argued that the prosecution
examined only interested witnesses, but the eyewitnesses to the alleged
incident have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further
contention that P.W.3 admitted that the deceased had received injury
due to fall in the well 15 days prior to the incident and the case of death
is due to septicemia which is possible due to previous injuries to the
deceased. He further submitted that the prosecution suppressed the
prior 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 wherein it was mentioned that the
deceased received injuries due to fall in his agricultural well and prayed
to set aside the impugned judgment.
6 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence
available on record both oral and documentary in right perspective and
no interference is warranted in this criminal revision case and prayed to
dismiss the revision.
7 Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved
the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-II
IPC beyond reasonable doubt or whether there is any illegality or
material irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference
of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397
Cr.P.C.
8 Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with
culpable homicide that is not murder. It states that a person who
commits an act that results in death, but without the intent to kill, can
be sentenced up to 10 years in prison, a fine, or both.
9 The evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, goes to show
that two months prior to the death of her husband, her cattle grazed in
the fields of others on which A.2 bear her daughter and A.1 threatened
her with dire consequences and it was pacified. Two or three months
thereafter, when A.1 was taking his double bullock cart through their
agricultural fields, she (P.W.1) objected along with her son. On that A.1
abused them in filthy language. Later they came back to their house.
After sometime A.1 and A.2 came out and quarreled with them. A.2
trampled her daughter when she tried to rescue her, then A.2 beat her
daughter. At that time, when her husband who came there to rescue
them, the accused took her husband and pushed him on the ground and
trampled him. Then they took her husband to Jadcherla hospital from
there to Government hospital Mahabubnagar. On the next day her
husband died.
10 The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is more or less in the version of
P.W.1. Though there was a suggestion to the prosecution witnesses
that 15 to 20 days prior to the alleged incident, the deceased fell in an
agricultural well and sustained injury in abdomen, except P.W.3 all the
other witnesses denied the same.
11 The incident was occurred at 7.00 P.M on 06.02.2002 and the
report was given at 9.00 am on 07.02.2002. So there is not at all any
inordinate delay in lodging the report inasmuch as after the incident
every one would automatically complain to the nearby first and also
concentrate how to rescue the injured. Moreover, the report was given
in the morning hours of the next day. So the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there was delay in lodging the FIR cannot
be countenanced.
12 Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the
deceased was not examined and hence the postmortem examination
report was not proved is concerned, this court is of the view that the
said contention also holds no ground since it is well established that
when the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deceased was not
available and some other doctor who knows and identifies the
handwriting and signature of the doctor, who conducted autopsy over
the dead body, it can be safely concluded that the postmortem
examination is proved. No doubt, it was the duty of the prosecution to
examine the autopsy surgeon and to prove the postmortem report since
it is a case of death. A postmortem report cannot be treated as a report
of Government Scientific expert as contemplated in Section 293 of
Cr.P.C. However, for fair ends of justice I have a glimpse to the
postmortem report which is already on record and I find nothing to
observe that had the autopsy surgeon was examined the case would
have been otherwise than that what is concluded by the Courts below.
13 The normal rule is that a post-mortem certificate being a document
containing the previous statement of a Doctor who examined the dead
body can be used only to corroborate the statement under Section 147
or to contradict the statement under Section 145 or to refresh his
memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. But the provision of
Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception to this rule. If the Doctor
who held autopsy is dead or is not available for examination, the
certificate issued by him is relevant and admissible under Section 32(2)
of the Evidence Act, which reads thus:
Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides that when a statement,
written or verbal, is made by a person in the discharge of professional
duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay,
the same is relevant and admissible in evidence. Besides, since the carbon
copy was made by one uniform process the same was primary evidence
within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act.
Therefore, the medical certificate was clearly admissible in evidence.
14 In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that non-
examination of the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deceased is
not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution and that the postmortem
examination report was proved through the evidence of P.W.16.
15 The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that both the courts below failed to appreciate that abrasion on
abdomen of the deceased is not having any corresponding internal injury
is concerned, the postmortem examination report clearly shows that the
deceased sustained injuries to intestine and kidney leading to septicemia
shock and death. P.W.16 has categorically stated that the injuries
mentioned in the P.M. report are possible when the deceased received
kicks with considerable force on his abdomen. The evidence of P.Ws.1
to 3 is categorical on this aspect. They stated in one voice that the
petitioner took her husband and pushed him on the ground and
trampled him. Therefore, the acts of the petitioner would clearly fall
under the provisions of Section 304-II IPC which deals with culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
16 The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the prosecution examined only interested witnesses, but the
eyewitnesses to the alleged incident have not supported the case of the
prosecution is also not plausible. When the prosecution theory is
believable and where there are no material contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the court can safely rely on the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses though they are interested. Mere
interestedness does not take away the case of the prosecution if it is
otherwise trustworthy.
17 The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the deceased received injuries previously due to fall in an agricultural
well is also not acceptable because the family members of the deceased
viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically denied the same and also there
was no mention about the same in any other form. Even if the said
contention is accepted, Explanation (1) to Section 299 I.P.C. says that a
person, who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a
disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of
that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
18 The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence
of P.W.16 clearly shows that the petitioner kicked the deceased to earth
and trampled him indiscriminately due to which he succumbed to the
injuries caused to the intestines and some other vital organs while
undergoing the treatment.
19 For the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the considered view that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 304-II of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
Both the courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of
the said offence and hence the findings arrived at by the courts below
do not warrant interference of this court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
20 However, since the offence was of the year 2002 and since the
petitioner has been roaming around the court all these years and since
the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for some days, I am
of the opinion that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years
is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner
while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the
petitioner within three months from today to the credit of S.C.No.23 of
2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool. In default,
the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Upon
payment of such fine amount, the legal heirs of the deceased are
permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security and on
proper identification by the learned trial Court.
21 Except the above modification in respect of the period of sentence,
this criminal revision case, in all other aspects, is dismissed. As a sequel,
miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 19--02--2025
K vsn
