SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.
Paleti Ramesh & Another - Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2009
Decided on : 02-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri D.V.N.Acharya

Point of law: Court does not find that altercation or subsequent fisting by appellants has resulted in death.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304, 323 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 174 - Offence of Murder - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Non examination of said Doctors is fatal to prosecution case for reason of initial assessment regarding receiving of injuries and diagnosis would have given a clear picture as to sufferings of deceased and also would have given reasons for his death. (Para 6).

Finding of Court :

It is not case that altercation or fisting by appellants resulted in such injuries to liver and kidneys of deceased. medical examination further states that both lungs were collapsed and blackened and there was two liters of blood stained fluid in peritoral cavity against column of stomach and its contents in Ex.P7. said collapsing and blackening of lungs, two liters of blood stained fluid in peritoral cavity and also swelling infection of liver and kidneys are not explained by prosecution. Admittedly, deceased was suffering from various ailments. In said circumstances, this Court does not find that altercation or subsequent fisting by appellants has resulted in death.

Results: Criminal Appeal allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1.000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.120 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 passed by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Initially, the charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed for causing the death of the deceased one Paleti Sathyanarayana by beating him in the stomach.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the both the appellants and deceased are neighbors and related as first cousins. On 07.01.2008, the appellants were marking the open plot beside them for constructing a house. The deceased objected stating that site belongs to him and no construction should be undertaken by the appellants. For the said reason, the appellants fisted the deceased in his stomach, as such, the deceased developed stomach pain and he was taken to the private hospital in Medchal. There he was examined and after taking treatment the deceased was brought back. However in the mid night, the deceased again developed stomach pain for which he was taken to Medchal hospital and he was referred to Medicity Hospital however the deceased was taken to Apollo hospital. On the next day around 11.00 a.m, the deceased died while undergoing treatment. For the said reason of appellants fisting the deceased in the stomach resulting his death, complaint was lodged. Though the complaint was filed on 10.01.2008 stating that he was beaten, the said crime was registered for the offence as suspicious death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. However, the police altered the section of law to Section 302 of IPC on 28.01.2008.

4. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the sons, P.W.2 is the wife, P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased respectively. P.W.5 is a private person who was declared as hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws 1 to 4 speak about the incident of the appellants demarcating the vacant land and on objection by the deceased, the appellants fisting deceased in his stomach. The witnesses also stated about the deceased being taken to the hospital initially and thereafter dying at Apollo Hospital.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the deceased died due to his liver related problems, it was attributed to the minor altercation that took place. For the reason of there being no weapons used or any evidence to suggest that fisting resulting in death, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that deliberately the appellants had beaten the deceased resulting in his death, for which the court had correctly come to the conclusion that it is an offence punishable under Section 304-Part-II of IPC. Therefore the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.

7. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 speak about the altercation and when A1 fisted the deceased, he fell down. Thereafter, A2 also assaulted the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 4 went to the rescue of the deceased and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital.

8. As seen from the evidence of P.W9, the Doctor stated that the cause of death is due to head injury and blunt injury to the abdomen. However, during cross-examination, he deposed as follows:

“As I noticed infection of liver of the deceased the deceased must have been suffering with a liver problem. I cannot say since how long he was suffering with liver infection. I did not send the liver/kidnies to FSL report for examination and report. It is true that I have not mentioned in Ex.P7 that the deceased died on account of head injuries and injury to abdomen.

The deceased was having a disease to lungs and he was suffering with liver disease and lungs disease prior to the death.”

9. As seen from the evidence of P.W.9, Doctor, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, there was fisting by A1 and he was taken to the Doctor immediat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top