Telangana High Court

Dasari Chandu , Chandra And Another vs State Of Telangana on 4 March, 2025

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                               *****
       CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.834, 248 and 1383 of 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.834 of 2018

Between:
# Dasari Chandu @ Chandra, S/o. Satyanarayana,
  Age: 25 years, R/o. Kalyan Nagar, Godavarikhani,
  Karimnagar District, Telangana State and another
                             .. Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2
              And
     The State of Telangana State,
     Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
     High Court, Hyderabad
                                ..Respondent/Complainant

Date of Judgment Pronounced: 04.03.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                           AND
       THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

1.      Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may          (Yes/No)
        be allowed to see the Judgments?

2.      Whether the copies of judgment may be             (Yes/No)
        marked to Law Reports/Journals?

3.      Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to          (Yes/No)
        see the fair copy of the Judgment?


                                                   __________________
                                                     K.SURENDER, J


                                       __________________________
                                       ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
                                2




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
  THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

    CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.834, 248 and 1383 of 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.834 of 2018

% Dated: 04.03.2025

# Dasari Chandu @ Chandra, S/o. Satyanarayana,
  Age: 25 years, R/o. Kalyan Nagar, Godavarikhani,
  Karimnagar District, Telangana State and another
                             .. Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2
           And
  The State of Telangana State,
  Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
  High Court, Hyderabad
                             ..Respondent/Complainant

! Counsel for appellants : -

^ Counsel for respondent :     Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla,
                               learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
                               for the State of Telangana


<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
   1. Civil Appeal No.788 of 2013, dated 28.01.2025
   2. (2019) 14 SCC 339
   3. (2022) 2 SCC 545
   4. (2022) 6 SCC 576
   5. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035
   6. (1981) 4 SCC 149
   7. (1989) 3 SCC 1
                                  3




      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                      AND
     THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.834, 248 and 1383 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.01.2018 in

Spl.S.C.No.61 of 2015, passed by the learned

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs

(POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar,

convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), these Criminal Appeals are filed.

2. Crl.A.No.834 of 2018 is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2,

Crl.A.No.248 of 2018 is filed by the accused No.3 and

Crl.A.No.1383 of 2018 is filed by the accused No.4. Since the

appeals are filed questioning the judgment passed in

Spl.S.C.No.61 of 2015, the appeals are disposed of by way of

this common judgment.

3. Heard Mr. C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel

representing Mr. C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused No.3 in Crl.A.No.248 of 2018, Mr. Mohd.

Muzaffer Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant/

accused No.4 in Crl.A.No.1383 of 2018 and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

4. It is informed that the accused No.1 died during the

pendency of Crl.A.No.834 of 2018. Accordingly, the case

against the accused No.1 stands abated.

5. On 21.09.2022, this Court had granted bail to the

accused No.2 on the ground that he was aged less than 18

years on the date of the incident. This Court had directed the

learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar, to enquire and submit a report regarding the age

of the accused No.2 on the date of the incident. A report was

sent by learned Sessions Judge on 28.05.2022, and according

to the report, the accused No.2 was aged less than 18 years on

the date of the incident. On the basis of juvenility of the

accused No.2, the bail was granted.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor neither disputed

the death of the accused No.1 nor the accused No.2 being less

than 18 years on the date of incident.

7. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.1, who is

the father of the deceased Boyina Prashanth, lodged a

complaint on 12.11.2014 at 04:00 a.m. In the telugu written

complaint, PW.1 stated that on 11.11.2014, at around 07:30

p.m., the deceased, along with his friend, namely Praveen, went

for dressing his fractured leg. PW.5 then informed PW.1 about

the deceased being murdered. Then, PW.1 went to the clinic

and asked PW.3-RMP Doctor and PW.4-Compounder, what had

happened. Both of them stated that two unidentified persons

entered the clinic and stabbed the deceased indiscriminately

with knives on his back, stomach, and chest, and fled away.

The deceased died instantaneously. In the complaint, PW.1

stated that he suspected the accused No.1 and his friends as

the assailants who attacked his son in the clinic with knives.

8. The said complaint was received by PW.12 on 12.11.2014

at 04:00 a.m., and immediately, he registered the complaint

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. PW.12 visited

the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence

panchanama, and also inquest proceedings. Thereafter, the

dead body was referred to the Government Area Hospital,

Godavarikhani, for autopsy. The material objects available at

the scene were seized. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested by

PW.12 on 18.11.2014. Their confessions were recorded, and the

motor cycle, which was used in the commission of the offence,

was seized.

9. The Test Identification Parade was conducted by the

learned Magistrate-PW.9. In the Test Identification Parade,

PWs.3, 4, and 5 participated and identified the accused Nos.1

to 4.

10. The investigation was concluded, and a charge sheet was

filed against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

11. The learned Sessions Judge, having framed charge for the

said offence against the accused Nos.1 to 4, and placing

reliance on the evidence of PWs.3, 4, and 5, convicted the

accused Nos.1 to 4.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused

Nos.3 and 4 submitted that the accused Nos.3 and 4 were

convicted with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Even according to

the eye witnesses' account, the accused Nos.3 and 4 were

standing outside the clinic, whereas the incident happened

inside the clinic. In the said circumstances, the question of

inferring that the accused Nos.3 and 4, who were outside the

clinic, shared a common intention with the accused Nos.1 and

2 cannot be believed. Even assuming that the accused Nos.3

and 4 were present at the scene, their mere presence will not,

in any manner, entail their conviction with the aid of Section 34

of IPC.

13. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Surendra Singh and another v. State of

Uttarakhand 1, wherein it was held as follows:

"18. By now it is a settled principle of law that for convicting the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds. It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime. It must be established that the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. Reliance in support of the aforesaid proposition could be placed on the following judgments of this Court in the cases of:

(i) Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v.

State of Gujarat 2;

(ii) Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab 3;

(iii) Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal 4;

and

1 Civil Appeal No.788 of 2013, dated 28.01.2025 2 (2019) 14 SCC 339 3 (2022) 2 SCC 545

(iv) Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 5."

14. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while

dealing with a case of convicting the accused with the aid of

Section 34 of IPC, held that the acts committed by the accused

should be in furtherance of the common intention of all the

accused, and prior meeting of minds should also be established

by the prosecution in order to convict the accused with the aid

of Section 34 of IPC.

15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor argued that PWs.3, 4, and 5 are the eye witnesses to

the incident, and their evidence cannot be disbelieved. Their

names were also mentioned in the complaint, which was lodged

with the Police.

16. PW.1 is the father of the deceased, who lodged a

complaint on 12.11.2014 at 04:00 a.m. According to the

prosecution case, the incident of stabbing the deceased took

place on 11.11.2014 at 09:30 p.m. The complaint was

registered on 12.11.2014 at 04:00 a.m., and was dispatched to

4 (2022) 6 SCC 576

2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035

the concerned Court. The complaint reached the concerned

Magistrate at 01:30 p.m., as seen from Ex.P11-FIR.

17. PW.12 Investigating Officer admitted in his cross-

examination that the distance between the Traffic Police Station

and the scene of offence was about 100 to 120 meters. He also

admitted that he did not verify whether any police personnel

were on duty at Ramagundam Police Station. It was also

admitted that the complaint was lodged nearly 6½ hours after

the incident. The complaint reached the concerned Magistrate

at 01:30 p.m.

18. According to PW.5, who was present along with the

deceased in the clinic when the incident happened, at around

09:30 p.m., the accused No.1 was talking to the deceased, and

accused Nos.2 to 4 came there on a motor cycle. The accused

No.1 questioned the deceased regarding the deceased beating

accused No.3. The deceased then requested accused that they

would speak about this issue some time later. The accused

No.1 then called accused No.2. The deceased, suspecting that

something might happen, went inside the clinic, and accused

Nos.1 and 2 followed the deceased into the clinic and stabbed

him on his chest, stomach, and back. Accused Nos.3 and 4

were standing outside the clinic. Pw.5 further stated that he

and PWs.3 and 4 were shocked upon witnessing the incident.

Immediately, after the stabbing, all the accused ran away.

19. PW.3 is the doctor in whose clinic the incident happened.

According to him, two persons followed the deceased into the

clinic, and stabbed him on his chest, back, and stomach. The

deceased died in the clinic. PW.3 identified accused Nos.1 and

2 as the persons who stabbed the deceased with knives.

20. PW.4 is a compounder who was working in the clinic of

PW.3. According to him, accused Nos.1 and 2 followed the

deceased into the clinic, and stabbed the deceased on his

chest, back, and stomach, while the accused Nos.3 and 4 were

standing outside. After the incident, all four of them left the

place.

21. The complaint was filed on 12.11.2014 at 04:00 a.m., i.e.,

nearly 6½ hours after the incident. In the said complaint, the

presence of PWs.3 and 4 is stated. However, in the complaint, it

is mentioned that two strangers had stabbed the deceased with

knives, and PW.1 suspected that it was the accused No.1 and

his friends who had stabbed the deceased. As seen from Ex.P1-

complaint, there is mention about two persons who stabbed the

deceased, but there is no mention of two others who had

accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 to the clinic. Further, the

name of the friend of the deceased is stated as Praveen. The

said Praveen was not examined by the prosecution. PW.5 is

Dasarapu Pradeep, who stated about accompanying the

deceased to the clinic. If at all, PW.5 had informed PW.1 about

the incident, his name would have been mentioned. However,

the name of one Praveen is mentioned in the written complaint.

Further, the complaint does not specify when PW.1 went to the

clinic or whether Praveen was present, nor is there any mention

of PW.5 at the scene. According to the information gathered by

PW.1, two unidentified persons entered into a quarrel with the

deceased and thereafter, both of them followed the deceased

into the clinic and stabbed him.

22. The complaint was filed with a delay of nearly 6½ hours.

In the complaint, there is no mention of PW.5. It is particularly

stated that two unidentified persons stabbed the deceased.

PW.3 is the doctor, who deposed before the Court about

accused Nos.1 and 2, however, he did not whisper anything

about accused Nos.3 and 4 being present outside the clinic.

Though PW.4 stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 were present

outside the clinic, however, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 creates

any amount of doubt regarding the presence of accused Nos.3

and 4 at the scene of offence.

23. The incident admittedly happened in the clinic and two

persons, who are, accused Nos.1 and 2, stabbed the deceased

with knives. Even assuming for a moment, that accused Nos.3

and 4 entertained the common intention of murdering the

deceased, according to the eye witnesses' account, there was an

altercation in between the deceased and the accused Nos.1 and

2, and thereafter, the deceased entered the clinic, followed by

accused Nos.1 and 2. It is not the case that accused Nos.3 and

4 either asked accused Nos.1 and 2 to attack the deceased or

entered the clinic when the alleged incident took place.

24. Firstly, the presence of accused Nos.3 and 4 is doubtful,

due to the non-mentioning of four persons in the complaint.

The narration given by PWs.3, 4, and 5 is regarding accused

Nos.1 and 2 entering the clinic, and committing the murder of

the deceased.

25. Under Section 34 of IPC, the prosecution has the duty to

prove the meeting of minds of the accused and that, pursuant

to such common intention, the offence was committed. In the

present facts of the case, as already discussed, the presence of

accused Nos.3 and 4 is doubtful. However, the common intent

on the part of accused Nos.3 and 4 cannot be inferred, as the

witnesses did not attribute any overt acts to them, making it

difficult for this Court to conclude that they entertained a

common intention along with accused Nos.1 and 2 to attack

the deceased.

26. In the said circumstances, the benefit of doubt is

extended to accused Nos.3 and 4.

27. Since accused No.2 was found to be a Juvenile in

accordance with the inquiry conducted by the learned

Sessions Judge, we are not inclined to give any finding on

the complicity of accused No.2. Even though he is found

guilty of the offence, as he is now around 27 years old, he

cannot be sent to any special school or Borstal school.

28. A similar situation was dealt with by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Jayendra and another v. State of Uttar

Pradesh 6, wherein it was held as follows:

"3. Section 2(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951 (U.P. Act 1 of 1952) defines a child to mean a person

(1981) 4 SCC 149

under the age of 16 years. Taking into account the various circumstances on the record of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant Jayendra was a child within the meaning of this provision on the date of the offence. Section 27 of the aforesaid Act says that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, no court shall sentence a child to imprisonment for life or to any term of imprisonment. Section 29 provides, insofar as it is material, that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years. In the normal course, we would have directed that the appellant Jayendra should be sent to an approved school but in view of the fact that he is now nearly 23 years of age, we cannot do so."

29. Similarly, in Bhoop Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh 7,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"8. Since the appellant is now aged more than 28 years of age, there is no question of the appellant now being sent to an approved school under the U.P. Children Act for being detained there. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court held in Jayendra v. State of U.P. [(1981) 4 SCC 149 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 809] that where an accused had been wrongly sentenced to imprisonment instead of being treated as a "child"

under Section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act and sent to an approved school and the accused had crossed the maximum age of detention in an approved school viz. 18 years, the course to be followed is to sustain the conviction but however quash the sentence imposed on the accused and direct his release forthwith.

(1989) 3 SCC 1

Accordingly, in this case also, we sustain the conviction of the appellant under all the charges framed against him but however quash the sentence awarded to him and direct his release forthwith."

30. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.834 of 2018 is disposed of, and

Crl.A.Nos.248 and 1383 of 2018 are allowed. The conviction

and sentence imposed against accused Nos.3 and 4, passed

in Spl.S.C.No.61 of 2015, dated 04.01.2018, by the learned

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs

(POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, is

hereby set aside. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J

___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 04.03.2025 Note: L.R. copy to be marked.

B/o.