Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
E.V. Venugopal, J.
Jillela, Kotha Venkat Reddy – Petitioner
versus
State of A.P., Rep. by P.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.315 of 2011
Decided on 19.2.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:L. Harish, Advocate
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Postmortem report cannot be treated as report of Government Scientific expert as contemplated in Section 293 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304-II and 323 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 105-II and 115 read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 438 and 442] – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and hurt – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – When doctor who conducted autopsy over deceased was not available and some other doctor who knows and identifies handwriting and signature of doctor, who conducted autopsy over dead body, it can be safely concluded that postmortem examination is proved – Postmortem report cannot be treated as report of Government Scientific expert as contemplated in Section 293 of Cr.P.C. – Medical certificate was admissible in evidence – Non-examination of doctor who conducted autopsy over deceased is not at all fatal to case of prosecution – Petitioner kicked deceased to earth and trampled him indiscriminately due to which he succumbed to injuries caused to intestines and some other vital organs while undergoing treatment – Prosecution has proved guilt of petitioner for offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts – Findings arrived at by courts below do not warrant interference – Since offence was of year 2002 and petitioner has already undergone incarceration for some days, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years reduced to period already undergone while enhancing fine amount to Rs.2,00,000/-. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20)
Result: Criminal Revision Case dismissed.
ORDER
This criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.2.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.113 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, whereunder the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner in S.C.No.23 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 323 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-II IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
2. The gravamen of the charge is that the Inspector of Police, Jadcherla filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 323 r/w 34 IPC basing on the complaint lodged by one Upparipally Anjamma of Kodparthy village of Thimmajipet Mandal. The accusation was that on 06.02.2002 at 7.00 pm while she was returning home along with her husband Upparapally Chinna Jangi Reddy to their house from their fields and when they reached near the house of one K.Venkat Reddy on the road, suddenly the petitioner and his wife A.2 and their nephew A.3 attacked them abusing them in foul and filthy language and beat them with hands and legs on the premise that she objected the driving of double bullock cart of A.1 through their fields. On hearing the cries, Boya Nagamma and Petla Sathyamma intervened and separated them. Basing on the above complaint, a case in Cr.No.7 of 2002 under Sections 341, 323 and 504 r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into. The injured was shifted to Government hospital, Mahbubnagar where he succumbed to the injuries. After completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against the petitioner and the other two accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 504 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC. After the case was made over to the trial Court charges under Sections 304, 504 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, having appreciated the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, found all the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-II and 323 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and further sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC, however, acquitted them of the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.9.2009 of the trial Court, the petitioner and the other accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar. The learned appellate court, having re-appreciated the entire evidence available on record, by judgment dated 07.02.2011 modified the judgment of the trial Court by acquitting the accused Nos.2 and 3 of the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC, but confirmed their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC. However, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner – A.1 by the trial Court on both counts. Hence the present revision by the petitioner – A.1.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate court having held that there is no intention on the part of the accused Nos.2 and 3 or knowledge that it may likely to cause death of the deceased and acquitted them, ought to have given the same benefit to
