THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.47 OF 2024

JUDGMENT

The Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused questioning the Judgment dated 21.08.2023 in S.C. No. 86 of 2016 passed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the IPC, in default whereof, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Heard Sri Allu Midhun Kumar, legal aid appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused married the victim i.e., the daughter of the deceased and out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between the accused and the victim. On 27.06.2016, as the accused beat the victim in fully drunken state, the victim came to the house of her parents. It is stated on the very fateful day, the accused followed the victim and came to her parents’ house. There took an arguments between the accused and the father of the victim (deceased), the accused beat the deceased mercilessly for giving support to the victim, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.117 of 2016 before the Chevella Police and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed vide S.C. No. 86 of 2016 on the file IX Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the IPC and was sentenced as afore mentioned.

4. During the course of the trial, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.

5. By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the IPC. Hence, the appeal by the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are sons of the deceased. He further submitted that since the deceased sustained only simple injuries not fatal injuries as per the medical evidence, the death of the deceased is not caused due to the said simple injuries. In view of the discrepancy in the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Appeal by acquitting the appellant.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State sought to sustain the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. He further submitted that mere discrepancies cannot be taken into consideration to rule out the evidence of the eyewitnesses.

Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.

8. PWs.1 and 2, who are elder and younger sons of the deceased, deposed that on 27.06.2016, since the accused came to their house in intoxicated condition and started quarrelling with them due to the matrimonial disputes between the accused and the victim, they asked him to leave the house. However, the accused fisted the deceased on his face, stomach and gave blows towards his stomach and body, due to which, the deceased fell unconscious. They also deposed that when the deceased was taken to the hospital, the doctor declared him brought dead. PW.3, who is one of the panchas for scene of offence-cum-seizure and inquest panchanama, deposed that on 28.06.2016 he, along with one K.Babaiah, attended the proceedings of scene of offence in the house of th