Partly allowed

Danthewad Prahlad v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC7 Jun 2023CRLA/585/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal appeal against conviction under Section 325 IPC for causing injury leading to death. The High Court observed that the appellant kicked the deceased without intent to kill amidst a domestic dispute. The court deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the period already served by the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of imprisonment of the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone.

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

¶1

¶2

[^32sl ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,^{THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYTHREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTIGE K,SURENDER}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{No:585 oF 2009}

¶8

Appeal filed^{underSection374 (2) ot Cr'P'C' aggrievedby the Judgmentdated} n_o[_Soo, irrsed^{in s.c.No.134 of 200g on the file of the court of the sessions} Judge, Adilabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

Danthewad^{Prahlad, S/o Dasharath'} {Oed 9!o^u1^{27 yea$'Occ:Coolie'Fl/o Kadki} Virrigl-,-l-li.rv"thnagar^{Tq., Nanded Dist (M'S')(A-1 )}

¶11

AppellanUAccused^No.1

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of^{A.P., Through Circle lnspeclor of Police' Boath' Adilabad Dist'Rep} riv in"'FrotiC^{iroiecutorlHigh courtof A' P', Hyderabad'}

¶14

...RespondenUComPlainant

¶15

CRLA^{MP. NO: 1131oF 2009}

¶16

Petition under^{Section 389 (1) of Cr'P'C' praying that for the. reasons} stated in the^{groundsof aipeal, tni ifighCourtmay be pleasedto enlarge} -the petitionerlnr dn bail by.rJpenAing^{tne lentence imposed in S'C'No134 of 2008} hv the Hon'ble Sessions Jr[g",^{A;lf"o,d, dated 27 'o4'2ooguntil the disposalof} t"ims and^{conditionsas this Hon'ble courtmav deem} ili"..;;;;';;;";i;;;r;h fit and^{proper in the interest of justice'}

¶17

Counsel forthe^{Appellant:SRIS' SURENDER REDDY}

¶18

Counsel forthe^{Respondent:PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶19

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 585 OF 2OO9

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

This Criminal Apperrl is filed by the appellant /A 1 aggrieved bv tLLe conrrictiorr rt:corded by the Sessions Judgt-' at Adilabad, in -a.C.No.134 o1' 20OB dated 27.O4.2OO9, for the offences punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to palr 2 fine of Rs. J ,000/-.

¶25

Heard learned counsc'l lor the appellant/Al and learned Additional Public Prosectrtor for the respondent State and perused the record

¶26

Briefly, the case of thr: prosecution is that on 27.O5.2O07, this appellant and two others $ent to the house of the deceased and beat the deceased for the reason of not allowing PW2 to accompany A1. PW2 is the uife of A1. The mother of PW2 was staying in the house of her ll-other i.e. the deceased. Since the mother of PW2 was suffering ill-health PW2 was staying in the house of the cleceased whcre her mother was staying. 1'he deceased is the maternal unc'le of PW2.

¶27

¶28

'.,s .a

¶29

4 . On the^{said date,theaPpcllant/A1, his father-A2 and} another^{person went to the house of deceased for asking PW2to} accompany^{them' Since the deceasedobjected A1 from taking} PW2 back^{with him, allthe three accused assaultedthe} deceased.^{It is specifically stated by the witnessesthat this} appellant^{kicked the deceasedon his testiclesard the deceased} fell down.^{Accordingto the Post Mortem report-Ex'P5' the} deceased^{died due to the injury on the scrotumwhich caused} cardio^{respiratory failure and consequent death'}

¶30

Learned^{Counsel appearingfor the appellant submitsthat} the trial^{Court has found that no offence was made out under} Section^{3O2 of the Indian Penal Code' however erred in} convicting^{the appellant underSection325 of the Indian Penal} Code.^{A general allegation is made that A1 to A3 had assaulted} the deceased'^{However A1 was convicted and A2 and A3 were} acquitted^{of the charge}

¶31

On the^{other hand learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor} submits^{that the evidenceof PW 1 to PW3 is consistent with} regard^{to the appellantkickingthe deceased}

t t

7 . As secn'lrom the e vitlcncc, rvitnesses PW I to PWIS spcak about the appellant kickirrg tlrc deceased rvho lell on the gror:nd ald immediate y PW1 ancl ,AI to A3 took him to the hospital

¶36

B. It is the case that tlrc said altercation in betu,een this appellant and the dec:eascrl took place for the reason of the deceased refusing to send lrack PW2 rvho is the ."vife of r,his appellant. Admittedly, the zrpl;cllant kicked the deceased, once and as a result the deceasccl lell dorvn. Since the appellant had kicked the de,:eased, oncc as rightly held by the learr-red Sessions Judge, there u,as no intention of any krncl on the part of the appellanl . Further, its seen from the record, the said act of this appellant was pursllant to an altercation that ensued in between them on account of the deceased objecting PW2 to be taken back by t,re appellant hr:rein who is the husbald.

¶37

In the sairl peculiar facts and circumstances, when there was a dispute in betu,een thc family members and the appellant had kicked the leceased, once, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of ir-r-rprisonment to the period already undergone. Mor,r so, the incident happened in the year 2OO7.

¶38

¶39

1S partly allowed 10. Accordingly,^{theCriminal Appeal} reducing the^{sentenceof imprisonment of the appeliant/A1to}

¶40

the period^{alreadYundergone}

¶41

Miscellaneous^{applications,if any pendingin this criminal}

¶42

appeal,^{shall stand closed}

¶43

sd/-c^{v M ALL:js$+'#t[1[XA}

/TTRUE^coPY/' 6b

SECTION^OFFICER

1 . rhe^{sessio n} : J' 9 9i:.11,"rb3i; Jy'[:T:',ff i^{jtoxl'l'.u,",} 2. rhe Judicial^{Masistrate ot tI',} i";inl;itrordp,'lrli,; state of retansana at Hign^{court ror t}

¶48

i ll,??3!",lli[3'l?LiJ"";;'-'i-' REDDY'^{Advocate toPU cl}

¶49

.. B'"1":t?3^{t?YIl t't} "*

¶50

Two^{CD CoPies}

kam

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710612023

ORDER

1 dE Sr A l.r-
)+
t>
iO
C)
1 I tl]t ?u0 .d
oi
t
t t) .,(l)
'.ii
t ji I'AT f'r'/2''

¶58

CRLA.No.585 of 2009

¶59

THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶60

@<orft$ &ro 9. 5^</sup>

Danthewad Prahlad v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danthewad Prahlad 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

Kanithi Veerabhadra Chary, Vs Cheryala Madana Chary and 3 Others

G.Venkata Sudha Vs the State of Telangana

Vamshee Krishna Kovuru Vs Smt. Abhilasha Kovuru

Sunder Matta , Vs R.Vijay Kumar and Another

The State of Telangana Vs Kanakam Siddeshwar Siddu

Mohammed Sayyad Vs Bandla Somi reddy