Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, E.V.VENUGOPAL, JJ.
Muddasani Sanjeev - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.1164 & 1049 of 2019
Decided on : 29-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P PRABHAKAR REDDY
For the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TG
Only a single injury can lead to a conviction under Section 304-I IPC if it occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation and lacks shared intention among co-accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304-I, 307, and 324 - Accused convicted of murder of deceased on account of a land dispute - Court held that only one stab wound was inflicted, warranting conviction under Section 304-I instead of Section 302, as it was a case of sudden fight without premeditation (Paras 11, 19, 21).
(B) Common Intention - Conviction under Section 34 IPC requires proof that accused shared a common intention; A-2 and A-3 were not seen participating in the act of stabbing, thereby undermining the prosecution's claim of shared intention (Paras 19, 21).
Facts of the case:
The deceased, involved in a land dispute, was stabbed by A-1 during an altercation. Eyewitness accounts were inconsistent regarding the roles of A-2 and A-3.
Findings of Court:
Conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 34 set aside; A-1 convicted under Section 304-I and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment; A-2 and A-3 convicted under Section 324 r/w Section 34.
Issues: Whether the act constituted murder or a lesser offence; whether A-2 and A-3 had shared intention in the stabbing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without clear evidence of participatory intent, the charges against A-2 and A-3 could not be sustained, and A-1’s conviction was thereby adjusted to reflect the nature of the assault.
Result: Appeals partially allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the incident leading to death. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding eyewitness accounts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal interpretations from precedent cases. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. prosecution's acknowledgment of evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's findings on intention and participation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. assessment of injuries and their implications. (Para 20) |
| 8. verdict on convictions and acquittals. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. final judgment summary. (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Surender, J.
1. Crl.A.No.1164 of 2019 is preferred by A-1 to A-3, and Crl.A.No.1049 of 2019 is preferred by A-4.
2. Since both the Appeals are filed questioning the conviction in S.C.No.205 of 2018, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Asifabad, both the appeals are considered and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. P.W.1 is the wife of Dasharatham (deceased). According to her, on 03.08.2017, at about 10 a.m., the deceased, along with his brother Ankaiah (not examined), went to the MRO office in connection with a land issue. In the evening at about 6 p.m., the deceased returned home and informed her that A-4 threatened him with dire consequences in connection with land disputes between the deceased’s family and the family of A-4. Around 9 p.m., the deceased went out. P.W.1, daughter, Swathi Priya/P.W.2, and son, Sai Preetham (not examined), were in the house. They heard the deceased shouting and went out. They found the deceased lying on the road with bleeding injuries in front of the house of P.W.4. A-1 to A-3 were near the deceased. A-1 was armed with a knife, A-2 and A-3 with an axe and an iron rod, respectively. When P.W.1 questioned him, the deceased stated that A-1 stabbed him. Immediately, Kotaiah/P.W.6 arrived at the scene, and he was also assaulted. The deceased was then taken to the hospital and treated by P.W.14. The deceased died on 03.08.2017.
5. P.W.14 examined P.W.6 and found the following injuries:
“1. A laceration measuring 2.3cm., x0.5 cm., on the right side of the chest.
2. A laceration measuring 2cm., x 0.5 cm., on the left forearm.
3. Fracture of left ulna.”
6. Postmortem was conducted by P.W.14 on the deceased, and P.W.14 found the following injuries:
“1. A deep laceration over left chest laterally 1 ½ x 2 inches.
2. Left lung was lacerated measuring 1 ½ x 3 inches.
3. Left side heart was lacerated measuring 1 x 2 inches.”
7. According to P.W.14, the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock, followed by a stab injury over the left chest.
8. P.W.1 lodged a complaint at 8 a.m. on 04.08.2017, narrating the incident and stating that the death of the deceased occurred at the hospital.
9. The Investigating Officer/P.W.15 took up investigation after the crime was registered. He went to the scene and conducted the scene of offence panchnama. Inquest was also held. Thereafter, the postmortem was conducted on 05.08.2017, and A-1 to A-3 were arrested. At their instance, M.Os.10, 11, and 12 were seized. The bloodstained shirt and trouser of A-2 were also seized. During the confessions of A-1 to A-3, it was revealed that A-4 also had a role to play. Accordingly, A-4 was also arrayed as an accused along with A-1 to A-3.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the only eye-witness to the incident is P.W.4. According to him, A-1 stabbed the deceased with a knife, and when he approached A-1 and the deceased after hearing a quarrel, A-2 and A-3 came there. P.W.4 called Kotaiah/P.W.6. When P.W.6 arrived, he was also attacked by A-1 to A-3. However, P.W.4 did not witness A-1 to A-3 assaulting P.W.6.
11. According to P.W.6, there was a quarrel between the deceased’s family and the family of the accused. In the MRO office, the deceased was threatened by A-2 and A-4. On the same day, in the night, the deceased called P.W.6
