Telangana High Court
Kommu Anil, Karimnagar Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 27 February, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1029 & 1460 OF 2017
Criminal Appeal No.1029 OF 2017
Between:
Kommu Anil,
S/o. Shyamson
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of Telangana rep., by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
Criminal Appeal No.1460 OF 2017
Between:
The State of Telangana rep., by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
... Appellant/
Complainant
And
Kommu Anil,
S/o. Shyamson
... Respondent/
Accused
DATE OF COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 27.02.2025
Submitted for approval.
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
__________________
J.ANIL KUMAR, J
3
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
+ CRL.A. Nos. 1029 OF 2017
% Dated 27.02.2025
# Kommu Anil,
S/o. Shyamson
...Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of Telangana rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
+ CRL.A. Nos. 1460 OF 2017
% Dated 27.02.2025
# The State of Telangana rep. by its
Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad
...Appellant/
Complainant
And
$ Kommu Anil,
S/o. Shyamson
... Respondent/
Accused
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.Avinash Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor for
State
4
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2022(9) SCC 766
2
2019 (17) SCC 812
3
2018 (2) SCC 496
4
2006 (4) SCC 653
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1029 OF 2017 & 1460 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
1. Crl.A.No.1029 of 2017 is preferred by the appellant,
questioning his conviction for the offence under Section 302
of IPC. Crl.A.No.1460 of 2017 is preferred by the State with a
prayer to direct that the appellant shall not be released on
parole till his natural death, since he is a rowdy sheeter and
a menace to the Society.
2. Since both the Appeals arise out of common judgment
in S.C.No.506 of 2012, both are heard together and disposed
off by way of this common judgment.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and
Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2012, at
about 7 p.m., P.W.10 purchased pakodi from P.W.9, who is
running a hotel, but P.W.10 did not make the payment, even
though P.W.9 insisted. Then, P.W.8 also insisted him to
make the payment. Thereafter, an altercation took place
between P.W.10 and P.W.8. Since P.W.10 was threatened, he
called the appellant over phone. Appellant came there and
beat P.W.4, who had joined P.W.8 and questioned P.W.10 for
altercating with P.W.8. Appellant also beat P.W.8, thereafter,
P.W.4 called Jelloji Raju and Jelloji Naresh (deceased) over
phone. P.W.4 along with the deceased went to Kisan Nagar
locality and caught hold of the appellant. While they were
trying to take the appellant to the Police Station, the
appellant took out a knife, which was concealed under the
seat of his motorcycle, and stabbed Raju, Naresh, Janagama
Kamal, Bachu Shashi Kiran, Kola Srinivas/P.W.4 and Pasula
Vijay/P.W.5. Jelloji Naresh (D.1) died on the spot and Jelloji
Raju (D.2) died on the way to hospital, and others were taken
to the hospital. While undergoing treatment, Janagama
Kamal (D.3) died on 09.03.2012, and Shashi Kiran (D.4) died
on 01.04.2012.
5. On receiving the information about D.1 and D.2, P.W.1,
who is their mother, along with her brother-in-law, Jelloji
Thirupati/P.W.2, lodged a complaint with the Police on
09.03.2012, at about 3:00 a.m. The Police took up
investigation, conducted inquest over the dead bodies and
obtained post mortem examination report. On 16.03.2012,
the appellant was arrested at railway station, Karimnagar.
Knife/M.O.15 and motorcycle/M.O.16 were seized at his
instance and accordingly, charge sheet was filed, after
concluding investigation.
6. P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7 are the eye witnesses to the
incident. Apart from the 4 deceased persons, P.Ws.4 and 5
were also attacked by the appellant and they received
injuries. P.Ws.4 and 5 were treated by
P.W.21/Dr.T.Vidyasagar.
7. P.W.4/Srinivas was operated and discharged on
18.03.2012. He received a penetrating injury with jekunal
perforation and mesenteric tear into assault, which is
grievous in nature. Ex.P.16 is the medico legal certificate
issued by P.W.21.
8. P.W.5/Parsula Vijay was discharged on 11.03.2012. He
received a stab injury over the right thigh 5 x 4 cms, which is
grievous in nature. Ex.P.17 is the medico legal certificate
issued by P.W.21
8. According to P.W.21, he examined and performed
operation of D.3, namely Kamal, who received the following
injuries:-
"1. Stab injury in the abdomen in the left flank.
2. Left side of the chest inframmary region.
3. Left supra scapula area.
4. Massive haemothorax.
P.W.21 stated that "since condition of D.3/Kamal was
serious, he was operated and left supra scapula wound
entering into left effects of plural cavity, 900 ml of blood was
drained out. Operation was performed and he was put on
ventilator with atrophic support. He died on 10.03.2012.
Ex.P.15 is the death certificate issued."
9. P.W.21 also treated D.4, namely Shashi Kiran. He was
discharged after treatment on 16.03.2012. He received the
following injuries:
"1. Stab injury right side of the abdomen 6 x 3 x 4 cms
with retroperitoneal and ascending colon haemotoma.
2. Exploratory laporotomy conducted on 09.03.2012 at
3 a.m.
3. Large retroperitoneal haemotoma was found through
out the lateral wall of ascending colon.
4. Haemotoma of mesentery nearly 500 ml blood was
seen peritoneal cavity.
5. Intraop blood loss nearly 1.5 ltrs."
Since condition of D.4 was serious, he was shifted to
Hyderabad for further treatment. Ex.P19 is the case sheet.
However, while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, D.4
died on 01.04.2012.
10. D.2, namely Jelloji Raju, who died instantaneously,
received the following injuries:
"1. Incised injury over the right abdomen measuring 2 x
2 cm.
2. Small intestine about 10 cms outside body.
3. Inside abdomen huge amount of blood collected.
4. Skull-N.A.D.
5. Brain-Congested."
The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock,
haemorrhage, and trauma. Approximate time of death was
11 to 22 hours prior to examination. Ex.P.20 is the post
mortem examination report dt.09.03.2012.
11. D.1, namely Jelloji Naresh, received the following
injuries:
"1. Incised injury over the left lateral below chin
measuring 3 x 2 inches.
2. Incised injury left lower part of abdomen measuring
2 x 3 inches.
3. Rupture of the descending colon.
4. Huge blood is present in abdomen cavity.
5. Skull-N.A.D.
6. Brain-Congested."
The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock,
haemorrhage, and poly trauma. The approximate time of
death was 11 to 22 hours prior to examination. Ex.P.21 is
the port mortem examination report, dt.09.03.2012. The
Doctor opined that the injuries received by both D.1 and D.2,
are possible by knife/M.O.15.
12. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for
murdering four persons, considering the evidence of eye
witnesses and injured, who are P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7.
13. The argument of learned counsel appearing for the
appellant is two folds:
1. The identity of the appellant was not established
by way of Test Identification Parade, as such, the
question of conviction does not arise.
2. The incident happened at the spur of the moment.
From the events, it can be gathered that the appellant
had neither any intention, nor premeditation to cause
the death of the deceased. In the absence of both,
intention and premeditation, the offence would squarely
fall within 304-I IPC or 304-II of IPC and not Section
302 of IPC.
14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on
the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
1. Ajmal vs. State of Kerala 1, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, conviction of the appellants would
be under Section 304-II of IPC as there is no premeditation to
commit murder. In the incident of assault in this case, there
was one death and three were injured.
2. Govind Singh vs. State of Chattisgarh 2, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, since the occurrence of
the incident was sudden, and there was no premeditation,
the act of the accused would fall under exception 4 of Section
300 of IPC.
3. Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
Others 3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the
evidence on record established that a sudden fight took place
between the appellant and the deceased. There was no
2022(9) SCC 766
2019 (17) SCC 812
2018 (2) SCC 496
evidence to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant
were with an intention to cause the death of the deceased.
4. Sandhaya Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra 4,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Fourth
exception to Section 300 of IPC covers the acts done in a
sudden fight. In a fight that suddenly takes place, both the
parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of
them started it, but if the other had not aggravated the fight
by his own conduct, situation may not have taken a serious
turn as it did.
15. The incident, as witnessed by P.Ws.4 and 5, happened
twice. In the first instance, the altercation took place in
between witnesses, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the appellant. In the
second instance, since there was a galata, after P.Ws.4 and 5
called the deceased over phone. The deceased persons, along
with P.Ws.4 and 5, questioned the appellant, and the
appellant beat P.Ws.4 and 5. It is also the case of P.Ws.4 and
5 that the appellant was being taken in an auto to Kisan
Nagar, near Subhash Nagar. D.1 to D.4 caught hold of the
appellant and it was decided that the appellant should be
2006 (4) SCC 653
taken to the Police Station. When the deceased started
questioning the appellant about the incident of altercation
with P.Ws.4 and 5, then the appellant picked up a knife and
started stabbing them in a frenzy. He stabbed all four
deceased, and also attacked P.Ws.4 and 5 with a knife. As
already stated, four persons died and P.Ws.4 and 5 got
injured.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that, at the
first instance, when the altercation had taken place, there
was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause any
injury or harm to any of the witnesses or the deceased. In
fact, the appellant was forced into an auto. As such, the
appellant apprehended danger at the hands of the deceased
and others and then he had acted in a manner to save
himself from them.
17. The incident lasted for nearly 15 minutes. The
appellant was in a frenzy and started stabbing 6 persons
indiscriminately. Two persons died on the spot. Two persons
were shifted to hospital. Third person died after being taken
to the hospital. Fourth person died nearly 21 days after the
incident. The appellant neither pleaded insanity, nor
temporary insanity.
18. In an incident, premeditation or intent can be gathered
from the facts of that particular case. The exception 4 under
Section 300 of IPC can be invoked when there is an incident
of culpable homicide without any premeditation and in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
However, Exception 4 of 300 of IPC cannot be applied if the
offender is found to have taken undue advantage, or acted in
a cruel or an unusual manner.
19. Even assuming for a moment that there was a quarrel,
and the appellant had attacked four deceased and P.Ws.4
and 5 to save himself, however, the manner in which four
persons were stabbed continuously, inflicting several injuries
on each of them, would clearly reflect the unusual and cruel
manner in which the appellant acted on the date of incident.
The manner in which the incident had taken place would
only go to show that the appellant had knowledge of his acts,
that his acts would result in the death of the persons whom
he attacked. The intention to cause death can also arise in
certain cases when an attack takes place. Such intention
can be gathered from the manner in which the person had
attacked and injured other persons. Since the appellant had
continuously attacked 6 persons in the very same incident, it
cannot be said that the appellant had no intention, or
premeditation in committing the murders of the deceased,
D.1 to D.4, or intention to cause death of P.Ws.4 and 5.
20. It is not the case of the appellant that either he was
temporarily insane, or he was in any manner, attacked by the
deceased or by the witnesses, when the incident happened.
The appellant did not receive any injury during the incident.
In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of
the appellant falls within exception 4 of 300 of IPC.
21. There were two altercations. At the time of second
altercation, while the appellant was being taken to the
hospital, the appellant indiscriminately attacked the
deceased and P.W.4 and P.W.5, altogether six persons. The
question of the witnesses not being able to identify the
assailant in such circumstances, does not arise. The
incident was gruesome and went on for a considerable time,
so as to leave an indelible impression in the minds of the
witnesses. The argument that the accused could not be
identified, cannot be accepted. There are absolutely no
grounds to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.
22. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.1029 of 2017 filed by the
appellant is dismissed. Since, the appellant is on bail, the
trial Court shall cause his appearance and send him to
prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence
imposed.
23. Insofar as Crl.A.No.1460 of 2017 filed by the State is
concerned, it is informed that the appellant was released on
bail. Till date, no report is filed to show that he has misused
the liberty given to him. There is no report from Jail
Superintendent to assess the conduct of the appellant, to
show that he is a threat or danger to the Society, as claimed
by the prosecution. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No.1460 of
2017 filed by the State is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 27.02.2025
dv
