Partly allowed

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC21 Nov 2012CRLA/1710/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder arising from a sudden quarrel. The court reduced the sentence from five years to two years considering the appellant's occupation as a rickshaw puller and responsibility toward his children.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed under Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence reduced from five years to two years rigorous imprisonment.

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) Vs State of a.P., rep… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1710 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused No.2 challenging the judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

¶5

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶6

L.Ws.2 to 8 and the deceased-Alapati Subba Rao are relatives of L.W.1. On 6.4.2002, at about 12 p.m., A1 to A3 came to participate in the death ceremony of one Alapati Saibaba and when they tried to have the meals, there were no seats for them, for which L.W.1 and deceased asked them to wait for some time and then, the accused felt insult and quarrelled with them by exchanging hot words. Thereafter, at about 1 p.m., in pursuance of their common intention, A1 arming with Kathipeeta and A2 arming with iron peg of Shamiyana, along with A3 attacked the deceased. A2 beat the deceased with iron rod on the left side of his head, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and when L.W.1 intervened, A3 tightly caught hold of him and A1 beat him with Kattipeeta on his left shoulder by uttering ‘Chavu Na kodaka, and inflicted bleeding injuries. When L.Ws.2 to 8 tried to nab the accused, they threatened them with knives. L.W.1 and the deceased were shifted to Government Hospital, Repalle for treatment. On the same day, at about 4.45 p.m., L.W.18 registered the statement of L.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 & 324 of IPC. While so, on the same day at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased expired and hence, the section of law was altered as Sections 302 and 307 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle and the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Guntur and the learned Sessions Judge made over the same to the III Additional Sessions Judge for disposal and subsequently, the case was transferred to the

¶7

learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

¶8

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got Exs.P1 to P17 and M.Os.1 and 2 marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.

¶9

On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 and 302 IPC; acquitted A1 and A3 for the offence punishable under sections 307 r/w 34 IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC, but however convicted A2 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years; and convicted A1 and A3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, sentenced A1 and A3 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the appellant-A2 filed the present appeal.

¶10

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶11

It is the case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein went to have a meal in a death ceremony of one Alapati Saibaba and the deceased asked him to wait for some time, for which, the appellantaccused felt insult and then, the appellant beat the deceased with an iron rod on the left side of forehead, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the Napa slabs and due to such injury, the deceased died.

¶12

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show the manner of incident. Their evidence is consistent and corroborative and most of the witnesses are eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the evidence of the medical Officer and the post mortem goes to show that the death of the deceased is due to the head injury.

¶13

According to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that there were no previous disputes or enmity between the

¶14

deceased and the appellant-A2 and the incident took place due to a petty quarrel that took place in the death ceremony at the time of meals and there was also exchange of words between the deceased and the appellant-A2 and then, the appellant-A2 beat the deceased with an iron road. Therefore, it can be said that there was no intention or motive on the part of the appellant-A2 to commit the offence, and the offence is nothing but an outcome of a sudden quarrel.

¶15

In this view of the matter and in the absence of any motive on the part of the appellant-A2 to commit the offence in question, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the offence in question falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 304-II IPC and thereby, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant-A2 for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. However, taking into consideration that the appellant is a Rickshaw puller and he has to take care of his children and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court for the above offence is reduced to that of two years.

¶16

In the result, the conviction recorded against the appellantaccused No.2 by the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.560 of 2002 for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is confirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the said offence is reduced to that of two years.

¶17

The appellant is directed to surrender before the Court below on or before 30^th December, 2012 to serve the remaining sentence. On his failure, the Court below is directed to issue NBW to secure and send him to prison so as to serve the remaining sentence. The period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off.

¶18

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶19

_____________ RAJA ELANGO, J

¶20

21^st November, 2012 Nn

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1710 of 2005

¶23

21.11.2012

¶24

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) v. State of a.P., rep. by its 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

Iqbalunnisa Begum , Farzana Begum, Vs Syed Abdul Quddus

Mohd. Mahaboob, (A-3) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Potarla Veeranna, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Mohd. Yousuf, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Sunkara Venkata Bulli Sudhir, Vs M.Srinivasa Rao

Mohd. Afzal, Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor