Partly allowed

Gandi Kondalu v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023CRLA/950/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal partly. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under IPC Section 304 Part II for culpable homicide. The Court held that while the conviction stood, the imprisonment sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone, keeping the fine unchanged, and discharged bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is partly allowed; sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine remains unaltered; bail bonds discharged.

Gandi Kondalu Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 I

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated:11.08.2010 in CRLAMp.N0.1454 of ZO.|O in Crl.A.No.950 of 2010.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 950 oF 2010

¶8

Criminal Appeal under Section 37 4(Z) of Cr.p.C against the judgment dated.27-07-2010 in S.c.No,268 of 2009 on the file of the court of the principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gandi Kondalu, S/o. Ramulu,. Aged gbog! 26 years, Occ: Motor _ bike Mechanic, R/o. Julur Village, pochampally Mandal, Nalgo'nda district

¶11

...Appe lla nUAcc used

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.p., Hyderabad.

¶14

... RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt A. DASHARATHA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.95O OF 2O1O

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

The : ppellant \'al s charged for the olfence under Section 30il of tl-rr: Inclirrn Penal Code (ftrr short 'lPC'). However, hrr rvas convictcd for the offence under Section 304-Part II of IPC and sentenced to uncergo Rigorous Imprisonme'rt for a periorl of five years ald also to pay fine of Rs.SOO/- in default thereto, simple imprrsonrnent for a period of 15 days. Aggrieved by the conviction, the present appeal is filed

¶21

In brief, the case of the prosecutron is that the deceased narnely'Gundala Narsimha' and otl-rers including PW2, PW4 and PW6 partied on the eve of f ierv Year'. At about 12:15 AM., the deceased and others pot down from the roof of house of Ramlrlu. While the rleceased was standing on the road, the appellant came there and greeted as'Happy Ne,r, Yr:ar'. Hou'ever, the deceased stated that he was elder to thr-- appellzrnt and he is not supposed to address him rLs 'Emeera' (u,hat rey), for rrvhich the appellant

¶22

¶23

fisted on the left eye of the deceased and the deceased fell down. He was taken to the hospital. The Doctor^declared him as 'brought dead' and^postmortem examination^was conducted. The Doctor opined that the deceased died due to 'hemorrhagic shock to head injury'.

¶24

Learned Sessions Judge had recorded the statements of the witnesses, out of which PW2, PW4 arrd PW6 are the eyewitnesses. All three of them have stated that it was the appellant who inflicted the blows on the left eye of the deceased and he fell down.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are any amount of discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses and that PWI was not eyewitness to the incident. However, he lodged the complaint. From the narration of the witnesses, the only plausible conclusion is that the deceased fell down in a drunken condition and died and there is no reason for the accused to assault the deceased and prayed to allow the appeal.

¶26

<br>

¶27

¶28

05.^rJn the othc'r hand, learned Adrlitional Public Prosecutor lor the Respondent/ State arguecl that nothing 1S suggesterl 1n thc evidence of PW2, PW4 rrnd PW6 that there is an.' enmitt, for false implication^{o- that incident} has not tal.en place.^F or said reasons,^{findingsof the} learned Sess;ions Judge cannot^{be interfered u'ith.}

¶29

06.^'Il-re incident llappening^{on theev(-' of 'Neu'Year',} after a partv is not clispllted.^{Hor'r'ever, the case of the} appellant is that^{he r,r'as llot present at the s(letle of offence} and cause o'death^{man' lle due to falling dorrn on a rough} surface. The said delcnce^{cannot be ac':elltedinthe} background of the eyes'itnesses^{i.e., PW2, t']W4 and PW6} speaking abr,ut the^incident

¶30

07 . It appears that^{on the Nev' Yearseve there was} drunken brawl and^{fight in between the app':llalt and the} deceased resulting^{in givine fist blows to on( zrnother'As} seen from tL e postmort em^{examinationrepcu-t, there was} one contusion over the lcft^{temporal region of the deceased'} There is no ilrfirmitv in the lindings^{of the lea:-nr:d Sessions} Judge. How,-'ver, in the background of^{thert:beinga fight}

¶31

¶32

after the^{deceased and the appellant were drunk'whtle} maintaining^{the conviction recorded by the trial Court' this} Court deems it^{appropriate to reduce the sentence of} imprisonment^{to the period alreadyundergone by the} appellant/ accused.^{However,the fine amount imposedby} the tria-l Court^{remains unaltered}

¶33

With the^{above modificationof sentence' this} Criminal Appeal^{is partly allowedThe bail bonds of the} appellant shall^{stand discharged' There shallbe no order} as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel,^{pendingMiscellaneous Applications,if}

¶35

any, shall stand^closed

¶36

SD/. C.V. MALLIKARJUNA^VARMA JOINIREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C;B SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The Principal Sessions^{Judge, Nalgonda(withrecords).}

¶39

The Additional Judicial^{Magistrate & lst ClassBhongir.}

¶40

The Superintendent,^{Central Prison, Cherlapally,Ranga Reddy District'}

¶41

The Station House^{Officer,PochampalliPolice Station, Nalgonda District.}

¶42

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶43

One CC to Sri^{A. Dasharatha, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶44

Two CD CoPies

kam

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:2010712023

,,-ar-:':=\a
.-./s-; rr t o" :
1
I rr
tt\ Is ti
\
,()o
/
).'.i'I ,',';,-)r''

¶52

JUDGMENT

¶53

CRLA.No.950 of 2010

¶54

THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶55

S
X

Gandi Kondalu v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandi Kondalu 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

N.Rajesh Vs Smt. N.Rekha

Shaik Latheef Sab Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Aijaz Vs Aliya Sultana

Kudula Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Patnam Kistaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Sri N.v.Sudhakar Vs a.R.Rao