Partly allowed

M.Yadaiah and 2 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLA/358/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for culpable homicide and murder. Confirming the conviction for attacking the deceased with a sickle, the Court reduced the sentence for the primary accused to one year while relieving the other two accused who had already served their jail term.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of A.1 reduced to one year; A.2 and A.3 acquitted/set free.

M.Yadaiah and 2 Others, Vs the State of a.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Appellant/A1to 43 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated. 24.O7.2023 in Crl.tV.P.No.497 of 2010 in Crl.A.No.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 358 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) o'f Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment dated. 26.02.2010 passed in SC.No.262 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Yadaiah S/o. Lingaiah, age 50 years, Milk Vendor, R/o. H.No. 51119611 , Premavathipet (V), Rajendranagar.

¶10

M.Ramachander, S/o. Lingaiah, lVilk Vendor, Fl/o. H.No. 5-1-88, Premavathipet (V), Rajendranagar.

¶11

M.Srishailam, S/o. Lingaiah, 45 years, Occ:Labourer, Fl/o. H.No. 5-1-88/1 , Premavathipet (V), Rajendranagar.

¶12

...APELLANTS/AI to 3

¶13

AND

¶14

State Of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. D SANGEETHA REDDY

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE Ii.SUIIE;NIIER

¶22

( RI!4INaI, aEBEAI, xs-gE8lL2Af()

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

The appr:llants preferred this Crimina Appe:,1 aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction passed by the learnerl V Additional District and f,essions Judge - Fast Track Court, RzLnga Reddy District at L.B Nagar in S.C.No.262 of 2006, dat<:d 26.02.2010.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the appr:llanr along with four others at .acked the deceased on 27 .Ol.2OO5 r,.hile he was in the house. According to P.W.3, who is the rlaug rter of the deceased and the sole eyewitness to the incident. A 1 carried a sickle in his hand, A.2 and A.3 took bricks anrl attacked the deceased whil: he was climbing the stairs.^'l'he a,:cluitted accused A.4 to A.7, a:cording to P.W.3, had kickt.d th: de,:eased with their legs and beaten him with their hands.

¶26

The decr:ased was hospitalized on the very szrme day i.e., on 27.OI.2OO5 ancl later while he was undergoing lreatment, died on 08.02.200^j. For the reason of death, the Ser:tion of Law was altered to Se:tion 302 I.P.C. All the accused A. I -o A.7 were charge sheett'd. However, the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the injuries lound on the deceased, helcl that A.l, A.2,

¶27

, ,

¶28

¶29

and A.3 were iiable for the offences under Section 325 I.P.C., and accordingly, convicted them

¶30

As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, it was A. 1 who had attacked the deceased on his head with a sickle. The postmortem report i.e., Ex.P-6 shows the first three injuries on the skull and the fourth injury are the healed abrasions of varying sizes on the back of right elbow region and left elbow region

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that on account of property disputes, the deceased was attacked.

¶32

Keeping in view the injuries being caused by A.1 with a sickle, this Court deems it appropriate to confirm the conviction. However, the sentence of imprisonment of A. 1 is reduced to one (01) year and against A.2 and A.3, the sentence of imprisonment is for the period that they have already undergone

¶33

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal

¶34

appeal, sha,ll stand closed.

¶35

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR (

//TRUE coPY//

SECTTON OFFICER

To,

The V Additional^{District and sessions JudgeFast TrackcourtR.R.Districtat} L.B.Nagar.^(With Records^{if anY)}

¶41

The Vlli Meiropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar'}

¶42

The Superintendent,^{Central Jail, Charlapalli, R R.District'}

¶43

The Staiion House^{Officer,Ra.iendranagar PoliceStation' Ranga Reddy'} 5. Two CCs^{to Public Prosecutor,HighCourt for the State Of Telangana at} Hyderabad(OUT) one cc to bnt.^{b SANGEETHA REDDY' Advocate[oPUC]}

vi Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2410i 12023

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.358 of 2010

I { E SrAtE o^'
/6
v
ItS
lr f 11 St??m
,yc
\ \r..t '-, ,g
\ i'.[ l-.,.,\i i .'
**-.=-

¶51

PARTLY ALLOWING

¶52

THE CRL.APPEAL

¶53

<br>)P-

M.Yadaiah and 2 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yadaiah and 2 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

Veeru Singh, Mahgalhat, Hyderabad and Another Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its P.P.,High Court, Hyd and Anr.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Budige Lingaiah

Chakali Srinivas, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

M.Satyanarayana Vs v.Shiva Rama Raju

G.Vnkatesh Vs the State of A.P.

Syed Abdul Aleem Vs Fathima Unnisa Begum