Telangana High Court

Uppu Venkatadri vs State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2025

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                 AND
        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1239 OF 2018

JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

This appeal is filed by appellant/Accused, aggrieved by the

conviction recorded by the XIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-

cum-XIII Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,

Ranga Reddy District, in S.C.No.547 of 2011, dated 13.03.2018. The

appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and

to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 302 of IPC.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 01.02.2011 around

12.30 P.M., a quarrel took place between PW.2-Kotha Prasad, PW.5-

T.Rajkiran, and Hanumanthu (not examined) regarding drinking

water at Road No.2, Green Park Colony. PW.2 was beaten up by

Hanumanthu, along with his friends, including the appellant herein.

PW.2 then informed Ranjith Reddy (deceased) on phone and asked

him to handle the situation. Around 5.30 P.M., the deceased went to

Green Hills Colony, and met his friends Prasad (PW.2) and Raj Kiran

(PW.5), and thereafter, enquired with the appellant regarding the

dispute at his house. The appellant quarreled with them, and with a

sharp edged weapon, stabbed the deceased on his back. The deceased

was then taken to the Aware Global Hospital. From there, he was

shifted to Sri Lakshmi Hospital, Nagole, where he was declared dead.

PW.1, who is related to the deceased, was informed about the

incident, and then he went to the hospital and found the deceased

dead. Then, PW.1 went to the Saroornagar Police and lodged a

complaint-Ex.P1. In the written complaint, PW.1 narrated about the

quarrel between PWs.2, 3, others, and the appellant.

3. The complaint was lodged at 9.00 P.M. PW.11, who was the then

Inspector of Police, registered the crime, and went to the hospital

where the inquest proceedings were held. Thereafter, the body was

shifted for postmortem examination. The postmortem was conducted

by PW.10, who found the following injuries:

"1. A vertically placed spindle shaped stab injury of 2 x 0.5 c.m. x cavity deep present on the left mid back in the paraver region i.e. 4 c.m. lateral and to the left of vertebral column. Margins are clean cut end ends are pointed.

2. Internally the left lung is lacerated at the lower lobe of 2 x 1 c.m. x through and through with surrounding contusion

and has collapsed about 2 ltrs of partially clotted blood present in the left pleural cavity."

The cause of death, according to PW.10, was 'Hypovolarmic shock'

consequent to a stab injury to the chest.

4. The appellant was arrested on 07.02.2011 by the Saroornagar

Police, personnel. The confession was recorded, and the knife, used to

stab the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant.

Having concluded the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against

the appellant.

5. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant mainly on

the basis of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, PWs.2 and 5.

6. The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that there was a quarrel between students who were more

than 15 in number. The said act of the appellant can only be

considered as private defence. When more than 15 persons went to

the house of the appellant, the appellant reacted in the said manner,

resulting in a stab injury to the deceased. Learned Counsel relied on

the Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay @

Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police 1 ;

Anbazhagan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police 2.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submits that the appellant had exceeded his right to private defence

and had knowledge that stabbing with a knife would cause death.

8. According to PW.2, there was a fight initially near the colony

involving PW.2, PW.5, the appellant, and other students. In the cross-

examination, PW.2 admitted that the appellant and the deceased were

intermediate friends studying in the same college. PW.2 is another

eye-witness who speaks about the appellant stabbing the deceased.

According to him, when the incident happened, nearly 40-50 people

had gathered at the scene.

9. According to the postmortem doctor, the deceased received one

stab injury, and the second injury was an internal injury resulting

from the first injury. The incident happened in front of the house of

the appellant. Admittedly, the deceased was called by PW.2 and PW.5

for the reason of there being a quarrel. All of them went to the house

of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was confronted by the

2025 SCC OnLine SC 123

2023 SCC OnLine SC 857

deceased and several other students. When the deceased and the

other students questioned the appellant in front of his house, the

appellant took out a knife and stabbed the deceased once from the

back.

10. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Vijayakumar's case

(supra-1), held that the incident happened in a spur of moment and

was not pre-planned or premeditated; therefore it could not amount

to an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A similar

view was taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in Anbazhagan's

case (supra-2). The Honourable Supreme Court had narrated the

principles that could be considered to determine whether the offence

falls within any of the exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian

Penal Code.

11. In Anbazhagan's case, the Honourable Supreme Court held as

follows:

"66. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:--

(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is

described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate:'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes and placing his revolver against the head of 'A', shoots 'A' in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A' was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of 'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter. The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

There may be no difficulty in holding that 'B' intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.

(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of

the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.

(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'.

(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.

(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the

clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 'sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause death' and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death.

To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is distinguished from more 'possibly'. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will 'probably happen'. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.

(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to

be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.

(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause

death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.

(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.

(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.

(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC."

12. The act of the appellant stabbing the deceased once on his back

occurred when the deceased, along 15 others, went to the house of

the appellant. Admittedly, there was no pre-meditation or any kind of

preplan that the appellant entertained. The incident happened in a

spur of moment when the appellant was confronted by the deceased

and the other students. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said

that the appellant entertained any intention to cause the death of the

deceased, and further, it is seen from the assault that only one stab

injury was inflicted by the appellant.

13. In the said circumstances, we deem it appropriate to convert the

conviction to one under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment of seven