Telangana High Court
Yarabolu Rami Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana on 12 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.418 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.09.2021, in
S.C.No.149 of 2017, on the file of the Court of the Special
Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities
against Women-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at
Khammam, whereby the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 were
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1
and 2 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
3. The appellants herein are accused Nos.1 and 2, who were
found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for
assaulting Narsi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), who is the brother of accused No.1, on 13.03.2016,
resulting in his death on 19.04.2016.
4. The events that transpired in the case are that on
13.03.2016, when the deceased was going to his house around
04.00 P.M., accused No.1, who is the brother of the deceased,
and accused No.2, who is the son of accused No.1, chased the
deceased and beat him with a stick on his back and head. The
incident happened in front of the house of the deceased.
Repeated blows were given by accused No.1 with a stick, and
when the deceased fell on the road, the accused kicked him
with legs and trampled him into the drainage near the house of
the deceased. On hearing the shoutings of PW.1 for help, the
neighbours and other relatives gathered at the scene and
thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the hospital.
5. The deceased was taken to the hospital where PW.16-
Doctor was working. According to PW.16-Doctor, on
13.03.2016 at around 08.55 P.M., the deceased was brought to
the causality with head injury. PW.16 examined the deceased,
and since there was a depressed fracture of the right frontal
bone with underlying brain contusion, surgery was done on
14.03.2016. Nearly 34 days thereafter, the deceased was
discharged on 18.04.2016 with an advice to visit the hospital
15 days thereafter for review. According to PW.16, there was
one external injury on the frontal bone. PW.16 also found
abrasion on the right forearm. Since the condition of the
deceased was stable, he was discharged from the hospital on
18.04.2016.
6. The deceased died on 19.04.2016. PW.1 had already
lodged a complaint with the police on 14.03.2016, which is the
next date of the assault. In the complaint, she narrated that at
around 04.00 P.M., on 13.03.2016, both accused Nos.1 and 2
assaulted the deceased with a stick and he was kicked with
legs and pushed into the drainage.
7. The police conducted the inquest proceedings, and
thereafter the body was sent for postmortem examination.
After the death of the deceased, the Section of law was altered
to Section 302 of IPC. PW.22 is the postmortem doctor, who
found the following injuries during the course of examination:
1. Fracture of left wrist along with abrasion 2 x 3 inches;
2. Abrasion on right elbow 2 x 3 inches;
3. Lacerated wound on right parietal region 10 x 2 x ½
inch;
4. Laceration on right occipital region 5 x 2 x ½ inch; and
5. On cut section of brain matter blood collection was
seen.
8. According to PW.22, the cause of death was due to
internal bleeding in the brain due to head injury. Ex.P13 is the
postmortem report.
9. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on the basis of
the investigation conducted and since the appellants were
found to have been involved in assaulting the deceased, the
charge sheet was laid for the offence punishable under Section
302 read with 34 of IPC.
10. The conviction of the appellants was mainly on the basis
of the evidence of PW.1 and the corroborating complaint that
was lodged on 14.03.2016. The other eyewitnesses to the
incident, PWs.2 to 7, turned hostile to the prosecution case.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed since she was not an
eyewitness to any kind of assault on the deceased. No
explanation is given nor any reasons are stated by the
prosecution regarding the delay in lodging the complaint. If at
all, the incident had taken place on 13.03.2016, there is no
reason as to why the complaint was filed only on 14.03.2016,
with a delay of nearly 25 hours, and further, the complaint
reached the Court on 15.03.2016. In all, there is a delay of 43
hours, as such, the averments made in the complaint are an
afterthought and the same cannot be looked into.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following
judgments:
1. Meharaj Singh(L/Nk) vs. State of U.P.1;
2. Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2;
3. Rajeevan and Another vs. State of Kerala 3;
4. State of Orissa vs. Brahmananda Nanda 4; and
5. Sonia Bahera vs. State of Orissa 5.
13. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would submit that since the deceased and the
appellants are closely related, the delay cannot form basis to
brush aside the case of the prosecution. There are disputes
between the parties regarding land, and there is sufficient
motive on the part of the appellants to harm the deceased, and
accordingly, they assaulted the deceased to his death.
14. The incident happened on 13.03.2016. PW.16, the Doctor
who treated PW.1, found that there was a head injury, and to
that effect, surgery was done on 14.03.2016. The deceased died
1994 (5) SCC 188
(1972) 3 SCC 393
(2003) 3 SCC 355
(1976) 4 SC 288
(1983) 2 SCC 327
on 19.04.2016, after being discharged on 18.04.2016. The
postmortem examination was conducted by PW.22. In the
postmortem examination, the postmortem Doctor found a
fracture on the left wrist of the deceased. The said fracture was
not stated by PW.16. It is for the prosecution to explain as to
how the fracture to the left wrist was received by the deceased,
since PW.16 did not speak about such fracture. The
postmortem Doctor PW.22 also failed to give the age of the
injuries of the deceased.
15. The death was caused nearly 35 days after the alleged
assault by the appellants. The cause of the death was due to
internal bleeding in the brain due to head injury. It is not
explained as to when the bleeding took place after the victim
received head injury. The postmortem Doctor did not speak
about the date of bleeding and the prosecution also failed to
explain as to what was the reasoning given by the Doctor
regarding the death of the deceased. If the bleeding had taken
place on the date of the incident, it has to be explained by the
prosecution as to why it was not detected and why the
deceased was discharged on 18.04.2016, while PW.16 certified
that the condition of the deceased was stable.
16. The evidence of PW.1 cannot be brushed aside solely
because the other witnesses to the incident turning hostile.
Since the deceased was the brother of accused No.1, it is
admitted that there were disputes between the parties
regarding the land. The delay in lodging the complaint cannot
form a basis to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1, who has stated
about the assault committed by accused Nos.1 and 2.
17. However, the prosecution has failed to explain that the
injuries caused by accused Nos.1 and 2 on the date of the
incident were a direct result of the death of the deceased. There
is a gap of nearly 35 days between the assault and the death. It
is for the prosecution to come up with an explanation and to
prove that the death was a direct result of the injuries that
were received by the deceased on 13.03.2016. However, the
evidence of PW.1 regarding the assault by the accused on the
date of incident is believable.
18. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted under Section
326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of four (04) years. The conviction under Section 302 of
IPC is set aside for the reasons discussed above.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
K.SURENDER, J
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 12.06.2025
VSU
