Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 589
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.ANIL KUMAR, JJ.
Nimmaraju Srinu And 2 Others – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.931 of 2015
Decided on : 29-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M ACHUTA REDDY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TG
IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the degree of intent and knowledge, with the court converting A1's conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304-II IPC.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code – Sections 302 and 304 – Conviction for murder – Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, but the court found that the act was not premeditated and converted the conviction of A1 to Section 304-II IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Common intention – The court held that mere participation in restraining the deceased does not imply a common intention to kill, thus extending the benefit of doubt to A2 and A3. (Paras 8 and 12)
Facts of the case :
The incident arose from a dispute over cattle grazing, leading to an altercation where A1 struck the deceased with a stick, resulting in death.
Findings of Court :
The court found that A1 acted without premeditation and that A2 and A3 did not share a common intention to kill.
Issues : The main issues were whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide and the nature of the intent behind the assault.
Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide lies in the degree of intent and knowledge, concluding that A1's actions fell under Section 304-II IPC.
Result : Conviction of A1 modified to Section 304-II IPC; convictions of A2 and A3 set aside.
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.07.2015 in S.C.No.500 of 2013 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet, convicting the appellant/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.
2. Heard Sri A.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/accused and Smt. Shalini, learned counsel assisting Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that there are disputes between the families of accused and deceased. A2 is paternal uncle of PW1, A1 is A2’s son and A3 is A1’s son. On 30.05.2013, when the cattle of PW1 went into the fields of A1 for grazing, A1 detained the cattle at his house. On knowing the same, PW2, who is wife of the deceased, went to accused premises. A1 picked up quarrel with her and thereafter, when PW1 went there, A1 assaulted him also. On seeing the assault, the deceased rushed to the place. Then, A1 pushed aside PW.1 and A2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased. In the mean time, A1 picked up stick and hit the deceased from behind, resulting in fracture of the skull and consequent death of the deceased. The deceased was then taken to the Government Community Hospital, Gajwel. There, he was declared as brought dead. PW1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 against the appellants/ accused. On the basis of the complaint, Police registered a case under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and investigated the case. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, having framed the charges, examined PWs.1 to 14 and Exs.P1 to 19 and MO.1/stick which was allegedly used to beat the deceased was brought on record on behalf of prosecution. Basing on the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2, the trial Court concluded that there was deliberant intent of accused to cause death of the deceased, pursuant to which, A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased and A1 beat the deceased on his head with the stick.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would submit that it is admitted by prosecution witnesses themselves that there were disputes between the families of accused and deceased regarding the agricultural land over a period of time. The said incident was not pre-determined and it happened at the spur of the moment. There was no understanding between A1 to beat the deceased and A2 and A3 to catch hold of deceased. When the alleged attack was not planned and assault by A1 was on account of altercation with the deceased and deceased confronting A1, the question of accused being found guilty for the offence of murder does not arise.
6. Learned counsel further argued that in so far as A2 and A3 are concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they concerted with A1 to cause injury to the deceased. In fact, in the said incident, A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased, when the deceased went to their premises and A1 had beat the deceased from behind. It is not even the case that the said beating by A1 was deliberate and to the knowledge of A2 and A3. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and Others Vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0207/2019 and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
“22. Other than the allegation that the accused persons caught hold of deceased Mohammad Shakil, there is no other instigating action or overt act attributed to the present appellant-accused actively participating in the commission of crime as alleged and from the conduct of the accused persons, it seems that there was no meeting of minds to form pre-arranged plan. It is true that it can be developed at the spur of the moment but there must be pre-arrangement and premeditated concert
