Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Tirumala Devi Eada, J.
Reshma – Appellant
versus
State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1154 of 2011
Decided on 1.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:MVL Narsaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – To hold conviction under Section 304-II of IPC, knowledge that said act is likely to cause death of deceased is sufficient.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – To hold conviction under Section 304-II of IPC, knowledge that said act is likely to cause death of deceased is sufficient – In present case it is proved that accused No.1 stabbed deceased with a knife, knowing fully well that said act could result in an injury to deceased, but at said point of time when she acted, she must not have realized that it would go to the extent of causing death of deceased, as she acted in a spur of moment – Offence under Section 304-II of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution – Conviction passed by Trial Court under Section 304 Part II of IPC upheld – However, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years set aside and modified to fine of Rs.500/- only, in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Criminal Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant – Accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.09.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.15 of 2011 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Asifabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and accordingly, she was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, Accused no.1, who is the wife of the deceased, stabbed the deceased in daylight and caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the charge sheet was laid for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
4. After following due procedure, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, and the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Asifabad, framed charges, heard the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thus conducted the trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, and Exs.P1 to P24 and MOs 1 to 6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.
6. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant–Accused No.1 guilty of the charge under Section 304-II of the IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred.
7. Heard the submissions of Sri G. Gnana Raghav, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
8. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that no eye witnesses to the incident were examined by the prosecution, and that it is alleged by the prosecution that, two years prior to the present incident, another incident of pouring kerosene on the deceased was reported, but no case was registered with regard to that complaint. He further submitted that, if examined in detail, the alleged act of the accused would bring about the fact that it occurred in the spur of the moment, when the deceased appeared in a naked condition and was threatening the family members of the accused, abusing them in filthy language, and behaving abnormally, it was only then the accused is alleged to have attacked the deceased with a knife. Thus, the action committed in the spur of the moment falls under general exceptions, and that the accused may be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted in this case. She, being the wife of the deceased, might not have entertained any intention or might not have committed the act with the knowledge that she would cause the death of the deceased. He therefore prayed to acquit the accused.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, based on the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellant and that the chain of events is so closely connected through circumstantial witnesses that the accusation is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the evidence on record and has convicted the appellant and, therefore, prayed to confirm the same.
10. Considering the above submissions, the points that fall for consideration in this appeal are:
1) Whether the charge under Section 304-II of IPC was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt?
2) Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court against the appellant herein are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
3) To what relief?
11. Point No.1:
a) The accused No.1 is alleged to have killed the deceased with a knife. According to prosecution PW2 is the first
