Partly allowed

Vaddera Bheemayya and 5 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023CRLA/10/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a criminal appeal against conviction for attempts to murder and affray. The Court set aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC due to lack of intention to cause death but upheld conviction under Section 324 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside. Conviction under Section 324 IPC affirmed. Additional fine of Rs. 10,000 imposed.

Vaddera Bheemayya and 5 Others, Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

BAIL SLIP: The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dated:06-01-2010 in crl.M.P.No.15 of 2010 in crt.A.No.10 of 2010.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 10 OF 2010

¶8

Criminal Appeal Under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment Dated 04-01-2010 in SC.No.22B of 2007 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Betwebn:

¶10

Vaddera Bheemayya (died)

¶11

Vaddera Lakshmaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 39 years, Auto Driver, SPR Hills, Karmiknagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

Vaddera Yadaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 28 years, Labourer, Fl/o. Upparpalli, Rajendranagar

¶13

Vaddera Narasimhulu, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 45 years, Labourer, Omnagar, SPR Hills, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

¶14

Vadderea Chandraiah, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 40 years, Stone Cufter, Rl/o. H.No. 2-5-5-512, Chintalmet, Rajendranagar.

¶15

Vaddera Krishna, S/o. Venkataiah, aged 35 years, Stone Cufter, Rl/o. H.No.23-98, Upperpally, Rajendranagar. ...Appellants/Accused

¶16

AND

¶17

State Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶18

...Respondent Com plainant

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI B. RAVINDRANATH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

l HE HON',BLE SRr IUSTTCE Il. STJRITNDER

¶23

(]RIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2O, O

¶24

TUDGMENT

¶25

This ,:r rrrinal appeal is aggrieved t'y th' conviction and sentence pass^,ci by the VI Additional Sessiorrs Jutle;e, I{anga^Reddy in S.C.No.22t l)-007 datecl 04.01.2010 for the o1fr'nccs rt:gistered uncier Secti,rr 307 r/w Section 149 of the I'rdiar l)enal Clode (for short'the IPC t.

¶26

I{earcl k rrnt'd counsel for the appellants,/ acc rr sec.l Nos.1 to 6 anc'l learncd ,<sup>,sistant Public Prosecutor for State

¶27

The cerst rf prosecution in brief is that st llir rg ancestral property, the trrothers who are accused Nos.I to 6 to the registra tion O^-l(le However, since the e ccus(,c' brothers i.e., accusecl Nos.l k, 6 were not inclined in favc,ur ol lrre proposal of P.W.1 to setl property, there was an altercatir'r arnongst the brothers. Il isa le,ged that all the six brothers ravr: irrdiscriminately beaten antl sta^,t.ccl P.W.1. However, it is sPecil'i:arlly mentioned

¶28

2 K5,J CRLA 10 2010

¶29

that accused No.1 (died) was holding a knife and causes cut

¶30

injuries on P.W.1's person. As far as the other accused are concerned, witness deposed that they were holding rods, granite stones, bricks and bat P.W.1 all over the bodv. p.W.lreceived bleeding injuries in the registration office and lost consciousness. He was taken to the hospital and treated. On the basis of the statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.1 complaint which was recorded by the police registered and investigation taken up. Charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section s 307 r / w 149 of the IpC. .

¶31

During the course of trial P.W.1 deposed the facts of the case and specifically mentioned that it was accused No.1 who had inflicted injuries with knife and all others attacked with bricks and rods.

¶32

5 The leamed senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is any amount of discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and he also improved the case during the course

¶33

¶34

KS,J CRLA 10 2010

¶35

of trial. On h,: basis of such improvements thr'rr-, c,rnnot be any such coni,ictir n.

¶36

On tlre other hanci learned Assistant I'u^lclit: Prosecutor submits that i [] the brothers i.e., accused N:ls. I tr 5 v.,ere inimical to P.W.1 u.h :h is evident from the fact tlat accr se(l Nos.1 to 6 attacked lhe P \AI.1 in office premises when rr 1;is tration was schecluletl. Fr rther, the doctor has deposed that Ihr: injurit-.s 3 and 4 . are likell' o cause death. In the sa id c i :c rm stances the

¶37

ingredier.rts; cf S:ction 307 of the IPC are nracle orrt, accordingly conviction has^,<: be sustained

¶38

The casc- tl P.W.l is that he was beaten indis:rirninatcly by accused Nos.? tc, 6 with granite stones and rods. However, two injuries wt:r'e [r und, apart from the two injuries irf] ictccl hv knife. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the e, ac . nature of attack to drir\' r inference of the guilt again:;t the a rpcllants. The persons wJro al racked P.W.1 with an intention to.::rusc his cleath are liabkr. I'hc r rid injuries are on the thigh pzrrt, g:li.is region and

¶39

¶40

KS,J CRLA 10 2O1O

¶41

also one injury on cheekbone. It carlnot be ascertaincd who caused

¶42

such injuries and the evidence is that all the brothers have indiscriminately beaten, which is contrary to medical evidence. However the factum of disputes amongst the brothers and brothers causing injuries can be believed

¶43

Keeping in view that the incident happened on account of differences regarding property amongst the brothers and the same was at spur of the moment in registration office.

¶44

This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the eonviction under Section 307 IPC as the ingredient of intention to cause death is lacking. In fact all the brothers have gone to the registration office. However, due to the differences that arouse among the brothers the incident occurred. The intention to cause death of P.W.1 cannot be inferred in the present facts of the case.

¶45

Flowever, the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to the period already ,.L

¶46

¶47

KS,J CRLA L0 2010

¶48

undergorl€'. H or^,ever, carcl-r appellant shall pay irdd itional fine of Rs.10,000/- ,rithin a periocl of one month. Firilure to pay said arnount tl'rt appellants shall undergo orro month simple

¶49

imprisonrner- . irs default sentence.

¶50

Accordi 11111., this Criminal Appeal is partlv allovred

¶51

As a sr' prel, miscellaneous petitions, penrlir.rg if any, shall stand clos,:cl Sd^{,-I:.SIIINIVASA}

¶52

Sd^{,-I:.SIIINIVASA} RAO JClr\T REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// t,

¶53

SEC'I-ION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

1- The lV Additi^rnal Sessions Judge, Ranga Redrly Distri :t.(,ruith^{records, if} any)

¶56

The Station Ho rse Officer Sanathnagar Police Stalion, Fa'rga^{Reddy District.} 3. The Superinter le^rnt, Central Jail Cherlapalli, Rangzi Red(^y lis^rict. 4. Two CCs to th^, Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sta e cf^{Telangana at} Hyderabad (rlt^T

¶57

One CC to SRI¹³ RAVINDRANATH, Advocate [OI'UC]

¶58

Two CD Copiet

kam

\ .,"

HIGH COUR I'

DATED:1 210tt2023

E. iT'" rs
l,"x
t1 ( n
) i1
') lu$ 2ss
) ?. ) .i

¶64

JUDGMENT

¶65

CRLA.No.10 of 2010

¶66

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALI.OWED

¶67

:, e-

Vaddera Bheemayya and 5 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddera Bheemayya and 5 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Nallolla Jangaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bakka Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dinesh Prasad Srivsthav, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Reguri Srinivas Vs Goparapu Satyanarayana and Another

Vanama Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Telangana

K.Suvarna Vs M.Uma Devi