Dismissed

Teddu Sailoo v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023CRLA/1375/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a pending criminal appeal filed by Teddu Sailoo against a session court conviction for causing death under Section 304-II IPC, without recording the earlier conflicting hearing dated 07/07/2023.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed; no specific relief or direction was granted.

What the court decided

Teddu Sailoo Vs the State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

.l i I I l

¶2

Bail Slip: The Petitioner / Accused was directed to be released on bail bv the order of the High Court dated 18-11-2010 in Crl.A.M.p.No. 2111 ot 2OiO in Crl.A.No. 1375 ot 201O

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMIN APPEAL NO : 1375 OF 2010

¶8

Crl.Appeal Unde. Section 371 (21 ot Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 22-10-2010 in S.C. No. 113 of 2008 on the fite of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Nizamabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

Teddu Sailoo, S/o Sailoor, Agriculture Ryo Lingasamudarm Village.

¶11

...Petitioner / APELLANT/ Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court , Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPODENTS/ Complainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. D. SANGEETHA REODY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLTC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: OROER

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMI NAL APPEAL l{o.1375 OF 2O1O

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

I . The appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC for causing death of P.W. 1's son.

¶23

The narration of witnesses P.W. 1 /mother of the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are neighbours is that on 07.02.2007 the appellant and the deceased were outside the house of the appellant. The said house of the accused is beyond the house of P.W.2. P.Ws.2 and 3 heard P.W.l shouting and when they came out, they saw the appellant running with a wooden pestle.

¶24

It is the case of P.W. 1 that the appellant ar-rd the deceased were sitting under tree in front of their house and she was preparing food inside. Since she heard commotion she came out of the house and found a wooden pestle in the hand of the appellant and he dealt a blow on the head of the deceased, on which, she raised hue and cry. On hearing her, P.Ws.2 and 3 and others came there. The accused ran away wittr ttre wooden pestle and the deceased died on the spot. Ex.Pl/complaint was lodged on 07.O2.2OO7 at 3.15 pm.

¶25

¶26

According to the^{Investigating Oflicer/P'W'9,they have} conducted scene^{of panchanarnaand also seized MOs'1 to 5 at the} scene of offence on^{07.O2.2OO7.On1'O'O2'2OO7, P'W'g} apprehended the^{appellant and upon hisconfession'} M.O.6/wooden Pestle^wasseized.

¶27

Having completed^{investigation,the police hled chargesheet} for the offence under^{Section 302 of IPC' However,the learned} Sessions Judge found^{that the appellant was guilty for the offence} under Section 304-II^{ofIPC and sentencedhim accordingly'}

¶28

Learned counsel^{appearing for the appellant would submit} thattheversionofP.Ws.lto3cannotbebelievedsinceitis contrary to the^{prosecutioncase. P-Ws' land 2statethat} immediately when the^{incident has taken place, P'Ws'2, 3and} others chased the^{appellant, caught hold of him and handed over} tothepolicewhenthepolicecametotheirvitlage'Admittedly,the incident happened^{on 07.o2.2OO7 and police also visited the scene} of offence on 07.O2.2OO7.

¶29

7 . On the other hand,^{learned Public Prosecutorwould submit} that P.W. 1 is the mother,^{who is eye witness to the incident' P'Ws'2} and 3 are witnesses^{to corroborate the versionof P'W' 1' There is no}

/,|/

necessity for P.W. 1 to falsely implicate the appellant if he had not committed the said offence. For the said reason, Criminal Appeal has to be dismissed.

¶35

It is the specifrc case of P.Ws. 1, 2 and others that the appellant was caught hold by the villagers and halded over to the police on O7.O2.2OO7. However, P.W.9, the Investigating Ofhcer claims that the appellant absconded and he was arrested three days thereafter on lO.O2.2OO7. The said discrepancy which goes to the root of the case has not been explajned by the prosecution. The version of P.Ws. l, 2 and 3 is that the accused waS caught hold and arrested by the police on 07.O2.2OO7. However, the police narrated that the appellant was arrested three days thereafter, the two contradictory versions throw any amount of doubt on the prosecution case being correct. P.W. 1 is an interested witness and the incident happened when she was inside the house. No reason is stated why the appellant would hit tJle deceased. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the appellant hit the deceased, since the deceased called him an impotent person. None of the witnesses stated about such reason for assault. The learned Sessions Judge has based his finding on the confession, which is inadmissible. The inquest report reflects that there was

¶36

¶37

strangulation marks on the neck of deceased.^However, no^such injuries were found during^post mortem examination.^{Collectively,} the evidence when considered,^prosecution has suppressed^the actual incident. For the said^{reasons, benelit of doubt is extended} to the appellant.

¶38

g . In the result, the^judgment of trial Court in^{S.C.No.1 13 of} 2OO8 dated 22.lO.2OlO^passed by the^{SessionsJudge at} Nizamabad is set aside. Since the appellant^{is on bail, his bail} bonds shall stand discharged. Consequently,^{miscellaneous} applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

Sd/- M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR @

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

Toi. Ttre Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad ( wit! recg(s ) i. itre Auditional^{JuJicial Magistrate of I Class,Nizamabad'}

¶43

5: iil; il;";i"ienaent,^{centrilJail, cherlapallv,Ransa Reddv District at} Hyderabad.

¶44

i;;atG to^{publicProsecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad

¶45

s. o;; CC to smt. D.^{SANGEETHAREDDY,Advocate[oPUc]}

¶46

Two CD CoPies

Pntq

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/0712023

-i. tl E S rar $ o
-a
tr)
O5 SEPzM
:,
' , .a!
.'\ ar-"^^ ' ',- . : -'; :1"
i-.---- - ,', - -'

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

CRL.APPEAL .No.1375 of 2010

¶53

DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL

¶54

?Pt(, c\d"l'

Teddu Sailoo v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Teddu Sailoo v. the State of A.P.

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

Avisetti Prasada Rao, (A9) Vs The State of A.P.

Kollu Naresh Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Atheeq Khan Vs Sahera Begum

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Yennam Srinivas Reddy, (a-1)

Golla Narayana , Thota Hanumandlu Vs The State of Telangana

Armu Dilip, Julgipodi [v], Mandla Dist. [M.P.] Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.