Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 417
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, E.V. VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Ryapan Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3117 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : PADMALATHA YADAV
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TG
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intention of the accused, as clarified by the circumstances surrounding the act, particularly regarding the degree of intent and the nature of injury inflicted.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Conviction for murder - Appellant initially sentenced under Section 302; conviction reduced to Section 304 Part-I due to single stab injury and lack of premeditation - Court emphasized on the need for careful assessment of intention in distinguishing between culpable homicide and murder - Conviction was based on consistent eyewitness testimony regarding the stabbing incident. (Paras 12-16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for stabbing the deceased during a quarrel over repayment of salary after abruptly quitting his job. The incident occurred on 29.01.2014, and the deceased succumbed to his injuries later in a hospital. (Paras 1, 3)
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by eyewitnesses was found credible, leading to the conclusion that the stabbing was executed without premeditation and amounted to culpable homicide, thus altering the charges. (Paras 10-16)
Issues: The crux of the matter involved distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide based on intention, and whether the evidence was sufficient for conviction. (Paras 12-15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that a single blow could not substantiate a murder charge; thus, the conviction was reduced to culpable homicide, reflecting the necessity for a nuanced understanding of the intent behind the act. (Paras 12-16)
Result: Criminal Appeal partly allowed, conviction modified to Section 304 Part-I with a reduced sentence of ten years. (Para 17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction appeal for murder charges. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments centered on witness credibility and circumstances surrounding the incident. (Para 2) |
| 3. details of the incident and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. conviction basis on eyewitness testimony. (Para 6) |
| 5. defense and prosecution arguments. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. witness reliability and incident context. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 7. legal analysis of intention and culpability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 8. conviction under section 304 ipc confirmed. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. order of the court on appeal outcome. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT :
(K. SURENDER, J.)
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in S.C.No.237 of 2014 dated 04.10.2017, for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC, and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. PW.1 lodged a complaint with the police on 29.01.2014 at 9.00 A.M. In the complaint, he stated that the appellant joined as a Farm Servant for working in the fields of Chinnolla Ganga Reddy s/o.Ramreddy (PW.6). However, he stopped working midway. The appellant took the salary of Rs.25,000/-. The younger brother of PW.6, i.e., Chinnolla Venkat Reddy (deceased), insisted that the appellant should pay back the salary amount that was given earlier since he stopped working midway. For the said reason, there was a quarrel between them. On 29.01.2014, in the morning hours at about 7.00 A.M., when the deceased was sitting along with Narapallu Mahesh Goud (PW.2), Mukutwar Chandrakanth (PW.3), and Velamala Rajareddy (PW.4) by the side of fire, the appellant came there, stabbed the deceased on his back, and fled. The deceased was immediately shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Bhainsa, and from there to the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The deceased died on account of the injuries. On 30.01.2014, PW.16 conducted autopsy on the dead body. According to the Autopsy doctor, he found one ante-mortem injury, i.e., sutured injury 3 Cms. length placed transversely below middle of left soapula. On opening of suture stab injury with clean cut margins measuring 3 Cms. x 1.5 Cms entering into left chest cavity seen. On opening of chest injury to base of posterior surface of left lung with 500 ml of blood in plural cavity seen.
4. PW.16 opined that the cause of death was due to stab injury to the left lung. Ex.P5 is the Postmortem report.
5. The Investigating Officer-PW.18 arrested the appellant on 02.02.2014 and conducted interrogation in the presence of PWs.13 and 14, wherein the appellant informed that he had kept the knife-M.O.1, which was used to stab the deceased, at the outskirts of Malegaon village. At the instance of the accused, MO.1 was seized. All the material objects were recovered from the scene and seized at the instance of the appellant for the purpose of FSL examination. The FSL report revealed that the material objects contained human blood.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence of PWs.2 to 4, who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, recorded the conviction of the appellant.
7. The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the incident happened in the month of January, which is the winter season and at 7.00 A.M. there would be no light. Even according to the witnesses, the person who stabbed the deceased came, stabbed him, and fled. In the said circumstances, there is no chance of any of the witnesses identifying the appellant. For the said reason, the counsel prayed to reverse the Judgment of conviction.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that three eye-witnesses have categorically stated about the stab by the appellant. Th
