Telangana High Court
Somapangu Jayaraju And 6 Others vs The State Of A.P. Rpe., By Its Pp on 20 January, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.101 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the
judgment dated 31.01.2012 in S.C.No.226 of 2010, on the file
of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapeta. The
appellant/A-1 to A-7 were convicted for the offence under
Section 304-II r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/Accused
Nos.1 to 7 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased lodged a
complaint on 16.02.2010 at 11:30 a.m. stating that his brother
(deceased) namely Jonnalagadda Satheesh went to the place
behind the house of P.W.1 where construction was going on.
The appellants were present there and they attacked the
deceased and started beating him with hands and pushed him
on to the ground. The deceased fell down facing sky and was
struggling. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Sai Manasa
Nursing Home/hospital of P.W.7 where he was examined.
P.W.7 found that the deceased was brought dead and
accordingly, issued Ex.P.3 certificate. In the said certificate,
the reason given was that the deceased was pushed by known
persons in the village on the same day.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Police registered a case
under Section 304-II r/w. 34 of IPC and started investigation.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence
panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses which is
Ex.P.7. Thereafter, having concluded the inquest proceedings,
which is Ex.P.6, the body was sent for post mortem
examination. P.W.14 conducted post mortem examination and
found the following injury:
"A fracture measuring about 4"x2"x1" c.m. on the middle
of the occipital bone with irregular edges."
5. Having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the 7 appellants who were named in the FIR as
assailants. Learned Sessions Judge concluded that death was
on account of acts of the appellants, however, it was
unintentional. Accordingly, conviction was recorded.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants would submit that case against the appellants was
fabricated. In fact, the actual incident was suppressed.
Though at the initial stage, it was stated that the appellants
have pushed the deceased on to the ground, however skull
fracture was found during post mortem examination. Initially,
the deceased was taken to P.W.7/Doctor who did not speak
about any fracture injuries. It is not explained by the
prosecution as to how fractures happened when the deceased
was pushed by the appellants. In fact, P.W.1 admitted that
there were around 20 people involved in the scuffle. Further,
learned senior counsel argued that post mortem examination
report was also fabricated and the same is evident from the
date and time mentioned on the 1st and 5th paragraphs of the
post mortem examination report. Since alleged death was not
explained by the prosecution as the result of any kind of acts by
the appellants, the question of convicting the appellants under
Section 304-II of IPC does not arise.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that though
several persons have attacked or were involved in the scuffle,
seven persons were specifically named, as such, the conviction
by the learned Sessions Judge was proper. However, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor failed to explain as to why at the
initial stage when P.W.7 examined the deceased, no fracture
was found.
8. The presence of the appellants at the scene and the fight
that took place is not disputed. It is not the case of the
appellants that they were falsely implicated. They have
admitted their presence at the scene. It is a case of scuffle
among several villages and defense is that appellants never
assaulted the deceased.
9. As seen from the complaint, P.Ws.3 and 5 turned hostile
to the prosecution case.
10. It was argued by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants that after one year, compensation for death of
deceased was claimed on the ground of natural death and the
Sarpanch was examined as D.W.1. The claim was made long
after the death and the complaint/Ex.P.1 that was filed. Any
such averment of natural death made in the death claim
application will not have any bearing on the initial complaint,
eye witness account and the investigation done. However, none
of the witnesses have specifically stated anything about the
deceased being beaten on the head or any deliberate acts of the
appellants resulting in the injury to the head. The fact remains
that there was scuffle and the appellants were involved in the
said scuffle. According to the eye witness account, the
deceased was beaten, thereafter, he fell down. In the said
circumstances, conviction under Section 304-II r/w.34 of IPC is
set aside. However, appellants are convicted under Section 323
of IPC and sentence is reduced to period already undergone.
The fine component remains unaltered.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 20.01.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.101 OF 2012
Dt. 20.01.2025
dv
