THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1548 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.05.2016 in S.C.No.80 of 2012, on the file of XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and the wife of Pichakuntla Mallaiah (deceased). According to her, the appellant and her husband had acquaintance. A quarrel ensued between them for repayment of debt of Rs.500/-. The said incident took place near the cremation of one Chukkamma. The deceased informed P.W.1 and the son of P.W.2 about the altercation. All three of them, i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2, and the deceased, went to the house of the appellant and questioned him. The appellant became furious and stabbed the deceased in the throat, resulting in a deep wound and consequent death. According to P.W.11/the post mortem Doctor, the death was on account of hypovolemic shock caused by a cut injury to the neck.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the case would fall within four corners of Section 304-II of IPC. The attack took place when P.W.1, P.W.2, and the deceased went to the house of the appellant and confronted him. There was only one injury inflicted on the neck and given the manner in which the injury was caused, it cannot be said that the act was premeditated or the appellant had any intention to murder the deceased.

5. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmichand vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 128 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case of drunken brawl, held that the attack on the deceased was neither intentional nor premeditated and converted the conviction under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC. He also relied on judgment of this Court in Md.Shafiuddin vs. State of Telangana, Crl.A.No.91 of 2015, wherein the Coordinate Bench found that the deceased and the witnesses had gone to the house of the

appellant and a quarrel ensued, the conviction would be under Section 304-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

“………we are also of the firm view, firstly, for the reason that there was only one solitary injury on the body of the deceased. Secondly, the place of incident was the house of the appellant/accused where the deceased had come and picked up a quarrel and fight with the appellant/accused and thirdly, there was no established motive or intention on the part of the appellant/accused to eliminate or kill the deceased. Thus, in the light of the judgments quoted above, the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 302 of IPC awarded by the trial Court is not proper, legal and justified and the same warrants interference. It is ordered accordingly.”

6. It is not disputed that P.Ws.1, 2, and the deceased went to the house of the appellant and confronted him. During the said confrontation, the appellant stabbed the deceased once in the throat. The said incident clearly indicates that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. There is neither motive nor any intent on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased.

7. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, and in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC. The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stan