Partly allowed

Maisala , Maisagalla Sailu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023CRLA/616/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 304 part II IPC for causing death by act of dangerous nature. The Court held that throwing a person to the ground upon collar-holding did not involve knowledge that such act would cause death, thus no specific intention to cause death existed. Accordingly, the conviction under 304 part II was set aside and the app

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304 part II IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged.

Maisala , Maisagalla Sailu, Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I !l li il I ii li I ri jr I !:

¶2

order of BAIL SLIP: the High Th€ Petitioner/ Accused Court dated.2B.04.2O,t0 was directed in Crl.A.M.p.tto.Sg2 to be released on bail oi 20rb-i;-' bv the^{' -} Crl.A.NO.616 ot20't0

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL NO:616 oF 2010

¶8

Appeat under Section 3721374(2)t3l$(4) of Cr.p.C prayins that the Hioh Co11t may be pteased to to setaside the Judgiient ,"0" ii sd.rui. il;; id6; d1.07.0420'10 on the fire of the ilr rd Addr. Diit and sessions Jauge, lrasi rracx him by court) at.Meda\and allowing this Criminal Appealacquit the appeilant herein for ftre cnarges Lv.)"J "g"iirt

¶9

Between:

¶10

#J;ig P#ffi Eltl'j,i3i'l;3'&#:if,i:l#* 28 vears' occ:Agricurture, R/o

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1

¶12

AND

¶13

, Rep' bv its Public Prosecutor, High court of Andhra pradesh, Il:i:1t:ft ^'P

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. RAJ KUMAR RUDRA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.616 OF 2O1O

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This Criminal Appea-l is hled questioning the judgment in S.C. No.364 of 2OO7 dated O7.O4.2OLO passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Medak

¶23

The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 3O4 part II of the Indian Penal Code,^(for short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo three^years of rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner was charged for the offence punishable uncler Section 3O2 of IPC.

¶24

It is the casc o[ the prosecution that the deceased and the appellant were known to each other. A wild pig died in the fields o[ one Ramakrishna Reddy due to electric shock. The rrppellant and the deceased and four others brought the wild pig to the village and meat was divided into 50 shares. Each share was sold for Rs.1O/-. The.-deceased ancl appellant raised disputes

¶25

¶26

l : .l

¶27

regarding share amount. Thereafter, the appellant and deceased went to the toddy shop and consumed toddy. On hearing that deceased and appellant were fighting, P.W. 1 went there and tried to interfere since both the appellant and accused caught hold of collars of one another. At that^juncture, when the deceased was holding the collar of the appellant, he twisted deceased hand and threw him on the floor. The deceased vomited blood and was shifted to ttre hospital where he was declared as brought dead. P.W. I filed complaint which is Ex.P. l. On the basis of the complaint, police hled charge sheet under section 302 of the I.P.C.

¶28

Learned Sessions Judge having examined P.Ws.l to 13 and marking Exs.Pl to WO, found that the act of the accused will not amount to an offence under section 302 of I.P.C., since the appellant had thrown the deceased to the ground for the reason of holdirig the collar of appellant.

T I

t I

Learned Sessions^{.Iudge found that it was sudden} provocation and convicted the appellant under^Section 304 part II of the IPC.

¶33

To substantiate the ingredients^{of Section 304 part} II of the I.P.C., an act should be^{done with the intention} of causing death or causing such^{bodily injury which is} likely to cause death. If there^{is no intention to cause} death or causing such bodily^{injury is likely to cause} death, offence under Section 304^{part II is not attracted.}

¶34

7 ln the present case, the only allegation^{is that the} deceased and the appellant caught hold^of each^others' collars and the appellant threw the^{deceased twisting} deceased hand on to the^ground. There^{is no allegation} of any kind of beating or kicking or any other^acts.

¶35

Throwing a person on to the^{ground whenhe} catches hold of one's collar would not^{amount to an act of} having knowledge that such act^{wouldcausedeath.} None of the ingredients under^{Section304-ll are made} out.

¶36

¶37

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction against the appellant for the offence under section 3O4-II in S.C. No.364 of 2OO7 dated O7.O4.2OLO passed by the learned III Additional District ald Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak is set aside. However, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone. The bail bonds if any, shall stand discharged.

¶38

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

sdr- K. sRlttlNAsA RAo JOINTREGISTRAR t1p

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The lll Additional Diskict & Sessions Judge (Fasst Track Court) at Medak With Records if any)

¶45

The Station House Officer, Medak rural Police Station, Medak District.

¶46

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶47

One CC to SRl. RAJ KUMAR RUDRA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶48

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3OlOGl2O23

i..? fi iAi5
/lt
I
1B [u$ 2$8
Ii

ORDER

CRLA.No.616 of 2010

PARTLY ALLOWING

THE CRL.APPEAL

Maisala , Maisagalla Sailu, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maisala , Maisagalla Sailu, 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

Kotte Anil Kumar Vs K.Sunithas Shalini

Mohd Baba, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Mohd Baba , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Choppari Narsaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gudupally Jagadeshwar, Venkatapur [v], Medak District. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Mohd Irhad , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.