Telangana High Court
Bonagiri Suman, Nizamabad Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.576 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This appeal is filed by appellant aggrieved by the
judgment, dated 31.03.2017, passed in S.C.No.5 of 2016
on the file of Family Court Judge-cum- Additional Sessions
Judge at Nizamabad, convicting the appellant for the
offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the
incident happened on 05.10.2015 at 6:00 p.m., while the
deceased, PW1, PW2, PW5 and others were sitting in front
of house of PW2. The appellant went there quarreled with
them and asked them as to why they were insisting him to
do work. The appellant went inside the house and brought
an iron rod and beat the deceased on her head. When
others who were sitting intervened, PW5 was also beaten
by the appellant. The deceased died there itself and PW5
2 KS, J & JAK, J
was taken to the hospital. Initially PW5 was treated by
PW7/RMP doctor and thereafter PW5 was taken to MG
hospital where PW16 treated PW5. The statement of PW1
was recorded by police at the scene of offence and it was
treated as complaint. The said complaint was registered for
the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.
4. The police conducted scene of offence panchanamma
where body of deceased was lying in front of house of PW2.
Inquest proceedings were also concluded at the scene.
Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem examination.
5. The police filed charge sheet against the appellant for
the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. Learned
Sessions Judge framed charges for the said offences and
found the appellant guilty for both the charges.
6. PWs.1 to 5 were sitting in front of house of PW2.
When the appellant went there, deceased questioned the
appellant as to why the appellant was sitting idle and not
doing any work. The appellant enraged with the said
question went inside the house and brought a steel rod and
beat the deceased on her head twice. When others
intervened, the appellant tried to attack others and also
inflicted injuries on PW5. PW5 was treated by PW16 from
3 KS, J & JAK, J
05.10.2015 to 14.10.2015 and operation was also done.
Ex.P14 is the wound certificate issued by PW16.
7. Learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that all PWs.1 to 5 were interested witnesses
and related. No motive is stated by any other witnesses for
the appellant to attack the deceased. In the absence of any
independent eye witness to the incident, the interested
testimony of PWs.1 to 5 has to be rejected.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would
submit that though all of them belong to the very same
village, however, they are not related. They were acquainted
with one another. There is no reason why PWs.1 to 5 would
speak against the appellant.
9. Having gone through the record, the evidence of
PWs.1 to 5 is consistent regarding the deceased advising
the appellant to work and not sit idle. Enraged by the
advice of deceased, there was a quarrel in between the
deceased and the appellant. The appellant then went inside
the house and brought a steel iron rod and beat the
deceased on her head. When others intervened, PW5 was
also beaten by the appellant resulting in grievous injuries.
4 KS, J & JAK, J
The incident happened on account of the appellant being
advised by the deceased to work.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavati v.
State of Maharashtra 1 held that Court in order to invoke
Exception-1 of Section 300 of IPC, has to see whether the
circumstances are of an exceptional character and the act
was done during the continuance of the state of mind.
11. The appellant quarreled with the deceased about her
advice and it cannot be said that the incident of attacking
was in spur of the moment or due to provocation. After
conversation with the deceased, the appellant quarreled
with her, went inside the house and brought a rod with
which he assaulted the deceased and others. In the said
circumstances, it cannot be said that the incident
happened due to sudden and grave provocation. The advice
given by the deceased will not amount to any provocation
due to which the alleged attack has taken place.
12. There are no grounds to interfere with the reasoning
given by the learned Sessions Judge while finding the
appellant guilty.
1962 Supp (1) SCR 567
5 KS, J & JAK, J
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
___________________
J. ANIL KUMAR, J
Date: 07.01.2025
Kgk
