Partly allowed

Tamtam Purnachandra Rao, (a 1) v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC26 Nov 2012CRLA/1627/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt, the High Court upheld the trial court's verdict but reduced the prison sentence for the appellant injured during a free fight and remitted the sentence for co-appellants to the time already served.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC reduced to three years; sentence for Section 324 IPC reduced to six months, to run concurrently, with set-off for time already spent in prison.

Tamtam Purnachandra Rao, (a 1) Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1627 OF 2005

¶2

DATED 26^th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

T.Purnachandra Rao & others

¶5

..Appellants-A.1 to A.3

and

State of A.P.

..Respondent

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1627 OF 2005

¶10

JUDGMENT:

¶11

This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellants-A.1 to A.3 against the judgment, dated 18.10.2005, rendered in Sessions Case No.626 of 2001 wherein and whereby the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narsaraopet, found the accused guilty under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part II and 324 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) against A.1 and under Section 324 IPC against A.2 and A.3 and sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Further, A.1 to A.3 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

¶12

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.03.2001 during a small quarrel A.2 beat his wife (L.W.6), who in turn informed the same to her mother i.e. the deceased herein. On that, deceased and her son questioned A.2, upon which a quarrel took place during which course of which A.1 to A.3 pushed the deceased and L.W.6 and in the mean

¶13

while other witnesses reached the scene of offence and a quarrel took place between two groups. During the said quarrel, A.1 stabbed the deceased on her chest with a knife. He also stabbed L.W.2 on his left hand, L.W.3 on his left forearm. A.1 further stabbed L.W.4 on her face, nose, left wrist, right hand, etc. Further, A.2 beat L.W.5 with stick on his thighs and A.3 beat L.W.1 with a stick. Hence, the case.

¶14

On committal of the case by the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gurazala, in P.R.C.No.28 of 2002 to the Court of Sessions, case was made over to X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at Narasaraopet, who framed charge under sections 302 and 307 IPC against A.1, 498A IPC against A.2 and 324 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3 were framed wherein they denied the offence.

¶15

After carefully perusing the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 12 and documentary evidence of Exs.P.1 to P.18, Exs.D.1 to D.6 and also MOs 1 to 12, the trial Judge convicted the accused as stated above while acquitting A.1 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and A.2 for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Challenging the same, present appeal has been preferred.

¶16

This Court heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the entire evidence on record both oral as well as documentary.

¶17

It is evident from the record that this is a case of free fight between two groups and a counter case is also registered against some of the witnesses herein alleging to have caused injuries to appellants herein. The trial Court considered all the aspects in a proper perspective and decided the issue convicting the appellants as stated above. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the conviction imposed by the trial Court.

¶18

But, at the same time, taking into consideration that since the other side group also caused injuries to the members of appellants’ group, in a free fight accused also caused injury on the deceased. Hence, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the

¶19

trial Court, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against A.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC is reduced to three years and for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Period of imprisonment already undergone by A.1 in prison be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Fine amount imposed on A.1 is not interfered with.

¶20

As far as A.2 and A.3 are concerned, they caused injuries with sticks. Hence, it can be presumed that there is no intention on their part to cause any grievous injuries. Considering the same, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on A.2 and A.3 is hereby reduced to that of the period already undergone by them in prison.

¶21

Subject to above modification in sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶24

Date : 26.11.2012 sur

Tamtam Purnachandra Rao, (a 1) v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamtam Purnachandra Rao, (a 1) v. State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor

Uppu Venkata Rao, Vs The State o Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Kotbi Komutsish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor

B.Mary Sara Danamma, Vs Naddi Venkateswaramma

Shaik Nabi Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Bhukya Kotiya, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor