Telangana High Court
Talpunoori Subbaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.707 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment
dated 27.09.2016 in S.C.No.596 of 2013 on the file of IX
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy,
convicting the appellants/A1 to A4 for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month each.
2. Heard Mr. Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the
appellants/A1 to A3, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband,
A2 is brother-in-law, A3 is father-in-law and A4 is the wife of
A1 respectively. The appellants/A1 to A4 were prosecuted for
the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for
JAK, J
beating the deceased to death on account of illicit relation in
between A4 (wife of A1) and the deceased. The complaint was
filed on 01.09.2013 by PW.1, who is the wife of the deceased.
In the complaint lodged at 8:00 A.M., she stated that on
previous day at around 10:30 P.M., A4 called the deceased to
her house saying that she was alone. PW.1 further stated
that they had illegal relationship in between them. The
deceased went to the house when the appellant/A1, who is
husband of A4, was not present. When the deceased and A4
were together, the appellants/A1 to A3 entered into the
house and assaulted the deceased by tying him to a pole in
the house and thereafter, he was thrown on the road. PWs.4
to 6 are the villagers, who witnessed the incident of beating
the deceased by A1 to A4. On hearing the hues and cries of
the deceased, the PWs.4 to 6 knocked the door of the house
of A1 and thereafter the appellants dragged the deceased and
threw him out of the house. On account of severe injuries,
the deceased died on the spot.
4. The Inspector - PW.17 took up investigation of the case,
went to the scene of offence, photographed the scene, dead
body and the statements of PWs.1 to 9 and others were
recorded at the scene. The inquest proceedings were also
JAK, J
conducted at the scene and thereafter the body was sent for
the post mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Kollapur.
The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Sandeep Kumar,
who was not examined, however, in his place, PW.16 -
Dr. M.A. Thaher was examined. PW.16 marked Ex.P26 which
is the post mortem examination of the deceased. According
to the opinion given by the Doctor, who conducted post
mortem examination, i.e., Dr. Sandeep Kumar, the deceased
died due to multiple organ damage (rapture) leading to
profuse internal bleeding and consequent cardiac arrest.
5. The appellants were arrested on 04.09.2013. They were
interrogated and their confession statements were recorded.
At the instance of A1, a cart peg and a nylon rope were
recovered from the house of the appellants and bamboo stick
was also recovered at the instance of A4. Having completed
the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
appellants/A1 to A4. According to the investigating officer,
the investigation revealed that the deceased was
indiscriminately beaten by tying him to a pole in the house of
the appellants since A4 had illicit intimacy with the deceased.
After killing the deceased, the dead body was thrown in front
of the house.
JAK, J
6. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Reliance was
mainly placed on the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, who were the
eye witnesses to the incident and also their names were
mentioned in the First Information Report, which was filed
by PW.1.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and
A2 would submit that the case was fabricated insofar as the
appellants are concerned. The version given by PWs.4 to 6
cannot be believed since they are not neighbours of the house
of the appellants as admitted by them and also as admitted
by the investigating officer. No reason has been given as to
why the immediate neighbours were not examined and if at
all the incident was taken place as spoken by the eye
witnesses - PWs.4 to 6, the probable witnesses are the
neighbours, but not PWs.4 to 6.
8. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants
would submit that this is a case of grave and sudden
provocation. It falls within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC
and though the death was homicidal, it does not amount to
murder. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
JAK, J
Hon'ble Supreme in K.M. Nanavati v. State of
Maharastra 1. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Devi v. State of
Himachal Pradesh 2. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the deaths
were caused by the accused while being deprived of the
power of self-control due to sudden provocation. Accordingly,
the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and
the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section
304 Part -I IPC.
9. In the present case, though the immediate neighbours
of the house of the appellants were not examined, that itself
cannot form the basis to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.4
to 6. The witnesses - PWs.4 to 6 have stated about the
appellants beating the deceased in the house of the
appellants. However, all the witnesses have stated that there
was illicit relationship in between A4 and the deceased.
10. In the complaint lodged by PW.1, it was specifically
mentioned that in the absence of A1, A1's wife, who is A4,
called the deceased and the deceased went to the house of
1962 AIR SC 605
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585
JAK, J
the appellants at 10:30 P.M. on 31.08.2013. Thereafter,
A1 found A4 in the company of the deceased in the house.
Then A1 along with A2 and A3 assaulted the deceased and
caused injuries to the deceased in the house resulting
in death.
11. The culpable homicide is not a murder under Exception
1 to Section 300 IPC, when the offender, whilst deprived of
the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation,
causes the death of the person. Whether the provocation was
grave and sudden enough to commit an offence amounting
to murder or not, would be a question of fact to be decided
on the basis of the circumstances or facts elicited in a
particular case.
12. In the present case, admittedly, A1 was not present in
the house, even according to PW.1, when the deceased went
to the house of the appellants, though he was called by A4.
The deceased was beaten by a stick which is normally
available in any house in a village. It is not a case that any
preparation was made earlier for causing hurt to the
deceased. The possibility of the husband - A1 loosing his
senses and control on account of seeing A4 and the deceased
JAK, J
together in his house is enough provocation resulting in A1
and other appellants/A2 and A3, who are the in-laws of A1
beating the deceased.
13. In the facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate
that the conviction under Section 302 IPC has to be set aside
while convicting the appellants/A1 and A2 under Section 304
Part -I IPC.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
Since the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section
304 Part I IPC is eight years, which is already undergone by
the appellants, the appellant/A1 shall be released forthwith,
if he is not required in any other case.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal
Appeal shall stand cancelled.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:07.01.2025
KH
