Telangana High Court
Bathula Murali, Nizamabad Dist. And Ano vs P.P., Hyd on 1 May, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 529 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N.Tukaramji)
We have heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-
State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 20.06.2016 in S.C.No.125 of 2014 passed by
the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
3. The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the accused Nos.1 and 2'), who were charged with offences
punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.'). Accused No.1 has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced
to life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default
of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He
was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and
2 PSK,J & NTR,J
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, with a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months. Accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for five years, with a fine of Rs.5,000/, and in default, to suffer
simple imprisonment for six months.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
On 03.02.2013 at 11:00 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Morthad/PW-17, received Police Report/Ex.P-1 stating that on the
same day, at about 9:30 AM, the de-facto complainant/PW-1, along
with one Renjerla Sayanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), had returned from the agricultural field. While parking
their vehicle in front of PW-1's house, they noticed a gathering in
front of a Dhaba house.
From the crowd, one Mahesh called them over and informed
them that, based on some loathsome information given by accused
No.2, his father abused him. Meanwhile, accused No.2 arrived and
assaulted Mahesh. When the de-facto complainant and the
deceased intervened, the accused No.2 warned them not to get
involved. However, the deceased questioned him about beating
Mahesh and asked accused No.2 to maintain quiet conduct.
3 PSK,J & NTR,J
Accused No.2 then mentioned a complaint lodged by the
deceased to the Superintendent of Police against them and boasted
that the Police would not take any action against him. At this point,
accused No.1 entered the Dhaba, returned with two knives, and
before the de-facto complainant could alert the deceased, accused
No.1 attacked the deceased.
Although the deceased took a cart peg and stood his ground,
accused No.1 managed to stab him in the stomach. In response,
the deceased struck accused No.1 on the head with the cart peg.
As accused No.1 advanced, the de-facto complainant grabbed the
cart peg and tried to hit accused No.1 on the head, but accused
No.1 stabbed him on the left side of the ribs and shoulder, causing
injuries.
Meanwhile, accused No.2 threw a boulder at the de-facto
complainant with the intent to kill, but he managed to escape.
Subsequently, accused No.2 took the knife from his elder
brother/accused No.1, and charged at them with the intent to kill. At
that moment, villagers gathered, causing both accused to flee.
The incident was witnessed by Dayanand/PW-4 and
Yugandhar/DW-2. The injured were taken to the hospital, where
authorities informed that the deceased was brought in dead. It was
also mentioned that, two years prior, as the deceased married
4 PSK,J & NTR,J
Shailaja, who belonged to another caste, lead the accused to
develop grudge against him and to commit the offence.
5. Upon the first information report/Ex.P-1, crime was registered
under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and after
due investigation, the Investigating Officer/PW-18 laid charge-
sheet.
6. The jurisdictional Magistrate, after due proceedings,
committed the case, and the Sessions Division, Nizamabad,
assigned it to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, for
adjudication.
After examining the accused, charges were framed under
Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. against accused No.1, and
under Sections 323 and 307 of the I.P.C. against accused No.2. As
the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the trial
proceeded.
During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 18 and
marked Exs.P-1 to P-26 and M.Os.1 to 7. In defence, DWs 1 to 4
were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-17 were marked. After
considering the material on record and concluding that the offences
committed by the accused were established beyond reasonable
5 PSK,J & NTR,J
doubt, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as
mentioned earlier.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that
the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper
perspective. Even if the prosecution version is accepted as it is, the
incident amounts to a free fight, and the sequence of events
indicates that the deceased was the aggressor. Furthermore, the
evidence of DWs 1 and 2 establishes that PW-1 initially attacked
the accused Nos.1 and 2 with a cart peg. The accused, despite
reaching the Police Station to lodge a report, found that the Police
did not receive it and neglected to take appropriate action.
Additionally, the appellants suffered injuries and underwent
treatment at the Government Hospital. The cross-examination of
the Investigating Officer reveals that the location from which the eye
witness (PW-4) claimed to have witnessed the incident was
obstructed by a wall, making it impossible to see the occurrence.
There is also no material supporting the alleged motive in the police
report; even otherwise, the disputes referred to could serve as a
basis for false implication. Moreover, the overt acts attributed to the
appellants do not constitute the essential ingredients of the
6 PSK,J & NTR,J
charges. The trial Court further disregarded the defence established
during the cross-examination of witnesses.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the authority of
Stalin vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police 1, submitting
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the materials,
held that circumstances must be carefully examined and, having
regard to the facts, modified the conviction to one under Section
304 Part I of the I.P.C. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for
reconsideration of the evidence on record and for the acquittal of
the appellants.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
ocular evidence establishes the attack by the appellants and the
infliction of fatal injuries on the deceased. The fact that accused
No.1 came armed with knives and stabbed the deceased
demonstrates the intention to cause death. As accused Nos.1 and 2
together attempted to kill the de-facto complainant, the trial Court
was justified in convicting the accused. Therefore, the conclusions
recorded by the trial Court are proper and deserve affirmation.
(2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 524
7 PSK,J & NTR,J
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel and perused the materials on record.
10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on
the direct evidence of the injured witness (PW-1) and the
eyewitness (PW-4). In response, the defence examined another
eyewitness, referred to in the First Information Statement (Ex.P-1),
as DW-2. The de-facto complainant, PW-1, is the star witness,
having been present throughout the incident and having suffered
injuries during the occurrence. It is a settled position that the
evidence of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal, as the
injuries confirm their presence at the scene and, being the victim,
they are less likely to give false testimony or implicate someone
other than the real assailant.
11. Regarding the occurrence, PW-1, the injured witness,
narrated the circumstances as stated in the first information
statement. He recounted that on 03.02.2013 at about 9:30 AM, the
deceased struck accused No.1 on the head with a cart peg,
following which accused No.1 stabbed the deceased in the left side
with a knife, causing the deceased to fall. Accused No.1 then
approached PW-1 with two knives. PW-1 picked up the cart peg,
which had fallen from the deceased's hands, to defend himself, but
8 PSK,J & NTR,J
accused No.1 stabbed him on the left flank and above the left
elbow. Accused No.2 then brought a boulder and threw it at PW-1,
but PW-1 managed to move aside and avoid injury. Subsequently,
accused No.2 took a knife from accused No.1 and advanced
towards PW-1, but as the public gathered, both accused fled.
12. The PW-4, the eyewitness, deposed that on 03.02.2013 at
about 9:30 AM, near the chicken centre-cum-Dhaba hotel, he saw
the accused assaulting Mahesh and stopped to observe. Mahesh
called the deceased and PW-1. After a verbal exchange, accused
No.1 entered the chicken centre, returned with two knives, and the
deceased picked up a cart peg. In the meantime, accused No.1
stabbed the deceased near the waist. After being stabbed, the
deceased struck accused No.1 on the head with the cart peg and
then collapsed. Accused No.1 then moved towards PW-1 and
stabbed him on the left flank and left arm. PW-1 responded by
striking accused No.1 on the left hand with the cart peg. Accused
No.2 brought a stone and threw it at PW-1, but missed. Accused
No.2, stating that the deceased had died and that PW-1 should also
be killed, took a knife from accused No.1 and advanced towards
PW-1, but both accused fled as the public gathered.
9 PSK,J & NTR,J
13. The other eyewitness referred to in the first information
statement was examined by the defence as DW-2. According to his
version, at about 8:30 AM, while proceeding in his auto and
reaching the chicken centre, he found a bullock cart obstructing his
vehicle. He observed PW-1 and the deceased removing cart pegs
from the cart and assaulting the accused. As a result, both accused
sustained head injuries and accused No.2 fell to the ground. He
further stated that the accused did not possess any weapons and
that the deceased and PW-1 left the scene.
14. In the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, except for suggestions,
no other material aspect was elicited in cross-examination. Notably,
it was suggested that the father of the deceased (PW-3) aspired to
the post of Sarpanch against the elder brother of the accused,
Sanjeev. Fearing defeat, PW-1, the deceased, and others allegedly
went in a group to eliminate Sanjeev, and in that context, when
accused No.1 approached, the deceased struck him with a cart
peg. Later, accused No.2 arrived and was also struck. Thereafter,
Sanjeev's supporters arrived, an altercation ensued, and PW-1
sustained injuries, but it was suggested that accused Nos.1 and 2
did not cause these injuries.
10 PSK,J & NTR,J
15. A careful reading of the above evidence establishes that on
03.02.2013 at about 9:30 AM, at the Chicken Centre-cum-Dhaba
Hotel (the scene of occurrence), an incident took place involving the
deceased, PW-1, and accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of PWs
1 and 4 regarding the manner of occurrence and the overt acts of
the accused is consistent. The mediator of the scene (PW-10) and
the entries in the mediator's report and rough sketch (Exs.P-8 and
P-9) support the witnesses' version regarding the location of the
incident.
16. The doctor (PW-14) who treated PW-1 deposed that on
03.02.2013 at 10:40 PM, PW-1 presented at the hospital with two
injuries: a laceration on the right elbow and a stab wound on the left
lower chest. He treated PW-1 for haemothorax until 08.02.2013 and
issued the Injury Certificate (Ex.P-14). PW-15, the doctor who
conducted the autopsy, stated that the deceased died due to intra-
peritoneal bleeding caused by a stab injury consistent with a knife
like M.O.1, as detailed in the Post Mortem Examination Report
(Ex.P-15). The cross-examination of these medical witnesses did
not yield any facts favourable to the accused. This medical
evidence aligns with the statements of PWs 1 and 4 regarding the
injuries caused by accused No.1 and the death of the deceased.
11 PSK,J & NTR,J
17. Other prosecution witnesses, including the wife of the
deceased (PW-2), the father of the deceased (PW-3), a resident of
a neighbouring village (PW-5), and the inquest mediator (PW-9),
also corroborate the fact of the deceased's death due to a stab
injury.
18. The facts regarding the injuries sustained by PW-1 and the
death of the deceased in the incident caused by accused No.1 are
clearly established.
19. The next aspect for consideration is whether the proved overt
acts of the accused satisfy the requirements under Sections 302
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
20. The prosecution relied on direct evidence to prove the
charges; therefore, proof of motive is not significant in this case.
21. The facts and circumstances narrated by the injured and
eyewitnesses indicate that the occurrence happened in the heat of
the moment. Their testimonies regarding the sequence of events
and the escalation suggest that the incident was not premeditated.
However, the weapon used by accused No.1 -a knife- demonstrates
both knowledge and intention, as it is common knowledge that
12 PSK,J & NTR,J
using a knife to inflict injury may result in death. In this case, the
knife was used to stab the victim in the back, resulting in
intraperitoneal bleeding. Thus, it is clear that accused No.1
intended to cause injury and knew that such an act could likely
result in death. However, the evidence does not establish a clear
intention to cause death, as the knife wound was not inflicted on a
vital part of the body. Nevertheless, the internal bleeding led to the
victim's death. Therefore, the evidence shows that, without
premeditated intention, accused No.1, with knowledge, caused
bodily injury with a knife that was likely to cause death. Accordingly,
the offence committed by accused No.1 falls within the parameters
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and his act against
the deceased is an offence under Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C.
Furthermore, considering the injuries caused by accused No.1 to
PW-1, the overt act and evidence satisfy the requirements for an
offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C.
22. Additionally, the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 clearly shows that
although accused No.2 committed certain acts, he did not cause
any injury to PW-1 or the deceased. In the heat of the quarrel
throwing a boulder or snatching a knife to stab PW-1, cannot be
stretched to conclude that these were attempts to commit murder.
13 PSK,J & NTR,J
23. For the reasons stated above, the conviction of accused No.1
deserves modification from Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. to Sections
304 Part I and 326 I.P.C., respectively, and accused No.2 is entitled
to acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.
24. For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Appeal is partly
allowed.
Appellant No.2/accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.
Further, the conviction of appellant No.1/accused No.1 under
Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. is set aside. Instead, as he is found
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part I and 326
I.P.C., conviction is recorded accordingly.
Consequently, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I
I.P.C. Additionally, appellant No.1/accused No.1 is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. Both
sentences shall run concurrently. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 is
14 PSK,J & NTR,J
entitled to set off the period of detention already undergone against
the sentence imposed by this Court.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications if any,
stands closed.
_______________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date : 01.05.2025
svl
