IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, JJ.
Mr. Dharavat Bhav Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep.By Its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.3162 Of 2018
Decided On : 15-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the case and the nature of the crime. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments and contentions from both sides. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal observations on the nature of violence and intent. (Para 12 , 13 , 35) |
| 4. distinction between culpable homicide and murder. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 47) |
| 5. importance of intent and knowledge in determining the charge. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 6. court's final decision and sentencing. (Para 48) |
JUDGMENT :
K. Lakshman, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for appellant - accused and Dr. S. Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 26.09.2018 in S.C. No.182 of 2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court - cum - VI Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, learned trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offences under Sections - 302 and 498A of IPC , and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Section - 302 of . He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Two (02) Years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence under Section - 498A of and in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.
4. It is a homicidal death of a house-wife by her husband. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is the brother of the deceased, while the appellant herein - accused is her husband. Twelve Years (12) ago from the date of incident, marriage of the deceased was performed with the appellant herein. They led the marital life happily for some period. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with female and male child i.e., Priyanka and Prem respectively. The appellant herein addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel and harass the deceased, both mentally and physically without any reasons. The same was narrated to her maternal uncles, PWs.3 and 4, who in turn approached the village elders, LW.12 and PW.16, who conducted a panchayat and admonished the appellant to change his attitude towards the deceased and lead a normal life with her and children. The appellant did not change his attitude and continued his harassment towards the deceased. On 06.04.2018 at about 22:00 hours, while the deceased and the appellant herein were having meals, the appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased and beat her with a pestle on her forehead and caused injury. On hearing the cries of the deceased, PW.2 went and found her in a pool of blood with head injury. By that time, the appellant herein fled away with pestle from there. The same was informed to PW.1. PWs.3 and 4 came there and shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment at 10.30 PM by an Auto-rickshaw of PW.10. The duty doctor on examination of the deceased declared her brought dead.
5. On receipt of Ex.P1 - report given by PW.1, brother of the deceased on 07.04.2018 at 02000 hours, PW.20, Sub-Inspector of Police, Raghunadhapalem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.67 of 2018 under Section - 302 of IPC and issued express FIR and handed over the same to PW.22, Inspector of Police, Singareni/In Charge of Khammam Rural Circle, for investigation. PW.22 accordingly took up investigation.
6. On completion of investigation, PW.22 filed a charge sheet against the appellant herein. The same was committed to the trial Court, which was taken on file as S.C. No.182 of 2018 for the offences under Sections - 302 and 498A of IPC .
7. The trial Court framed charges for the aforesaid offences against the accused and then proceeded with trial.
8. During trial, PWs.1 to 22 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked and MOs.1 to 6 were exhibited. No evidence either oral or documentary was let in on behalf of the accused.
9. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecut
Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, ruling that the accused acted impulsively without premeditation, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part I....
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the appellant's actions fell under Section 304 Part-I due to lack of intent and premeditation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.