Partly allowed

Danam Sudhakar, Budwel, R.R.District v. the State of a.P.,through SHO Rajendranagar P.S,R.R.Dt by Pp

Telangana HC6 Aug 2024CRLA/102/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court examined the conviction for attempt to murder. The court held that while injuries were grievous, the prosecution failed to prove the specific intention to cause death. Consequently, the conviction was modified to an offense under Section 324 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone.

Danam Sudhakar, Budwel, R.R.District Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE : The Appellant (Accused) was directed to^{be released on bail by the order of} the High Court dated 08.02.2011 in Crl A.tVl.P.No. 288 of^{2011 in Crl A.No. 102 of} 2011

¶2

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 102 OF 2011

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr P.C., aggrieved by^{the Judgment} daled 17.01 .201 1 passed in S.C.No. 171 of 2008^{on the file of the Court of the lV} Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Danam Sudhakar @ Tillu, S/o. Gandaiah,^A ge: 27 years, Occ Catering works R/o. lndiranagar Colony, Budwel, Ranga^Re ddy District.

¶11

...Appellant(Accused)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., through SHO., Rajendernagar^{P S} ,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict,} Rept. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

-..^{Res pondent(Com} Pla^inant)

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S. Lakshmi^Kanth

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O2 OF 2O1l

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

The appellant was convicted for the offence of attempt to murder of his brother and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is filed.

¶22

Briefly, the case of the victim-PW.3 is that the appellant is his brother. He u,as not doing any work and used 1_o demand money from PW.3 and also his father-PW. 1. It is the case of pW.3 that on 11.08.2OO7, at about 3.30 p.m., the accused dropped grarite stone on his head. PW.3 shouted and thereafter lost consclousness His father PW. I took him to the hospital

¶23

{

¶24

3- Learned Sessions Judge found that though pW. 1 who is the father has turned hostile to the prosecution case ald did not admit that the appellant had dropped stone on his head however, the appellant .v.as responsible and the brother would not file a false case against him.

¶25

4 . Having gor.re through the record, PW.3 admitted before the Police that a stone r,r,as dropped while he wis in sleep. Further, the father-PW 1 turned hostile to the prosecution case ald stated

¶26

¶27

that on the night PW.3 received injuries when a stone fell on his head. However, he declined to identify the person who caused the injury to his son.

¶28

5 The injured-PW.3 and PW.t have identified the granite stone which is M.O.l. The prosecution has not taken any steps to confront the doctor-PW.6 for his opinion that pW.3 received rnluries on account of dropping of M.O.l on his head. According to the doctor, PW.3 received i) laceration over forehead 4 x 2 cms. ii)Bleeding from nose and mouth. Since the injuries appear to be grievous in nature as stated by PW.6 and the intention is not proved by the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that the offence falls under Section 324 of the Indian penal Code.

¶29

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allor.r,ed and the conviction under Section 3O7 of the Indian penal code is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone by

¶30

him.

¶31

Sd/- C,V.MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶32

To,

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

The lV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. (wrth records) 2 The Vlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyber6bad, Rdlendranagar

¶35

The Superintendent, Central prison, Cherlapally,'R. R.Distiict 4. The Station House Officer, Rajendranagar police Station, R R District 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosebutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶36

One CC to Sri S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate [OpUCj

¶37

Two CD Copies

¶38

Nib/l'lt Pi-

¶39

HIGH COURT DATED:0610812024

¶40

I
I

¶41

JUDGMENT CRLA.No.102 of 2011

¶42

,a--__.-a ii,:
i--).)
/. .
I
, I 'i ^ b -Ll1i,T 2UI v
.4. .1,
,/il
' ,:/ /

¶43

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶44

.r-rJe[ \o Yr-zild"i

Danam Sudhakar, Budwel, R.R.District v. the State of a.P.,through SHO Rajendranagar P.S,R.R.Dt by Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Danam Sudhakar, Budwel, R.R.District v. the State of a.P.,through SHO Rajendranagar P.S,R.R.Dt 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

Ch.Ram Reddy, Nizamabad District Vs Mohd. Shabbir Ali, Nizamabad District and Another

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Doulath Bee and 4 Ors.

N.Eswar Rao, Vs Thatipamula Raju, and Another

Smt. Maimooda , Shaik Mahamooda, Mahabubnagar Dist. Vs P. Shabbir Hussain, Kurnool Dist., and 4 Ano.

Polepally Pentaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Boini Ramulu Vs K. Narsimulu and Another