Partly allowed

Golla Meddileti, Mahabubnagar Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024CRLA/1120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana considered an appeal against a murder conviction. The court held that the appellant acted in the heat of passion during a sudden fight, finding the act fell within mischief exception to Section 302 IPC. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the murder conviction in favor of Section 304 Part II IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

Golla Meddileti, Mahabubnagar Dt., Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴¹⁹ ]

¶2

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Courtdated 26-12-2022 in l.A.No.1 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.1120 of 2016.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1120 ot 2016

¶9

Appeal under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18-11-2016 passed in S.C.No.111 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwal.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Golla Maddileti, S/o. Ramudu, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. PeddathandrapaduVillage,WaddepallyMandal,MahaboobnagarDistrict. {''

¶12

...AppellanUA-1

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Counsel forthe Appellant: Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.l12O OF 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶22

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.20i6 passed in S.C.No.111 of 2074 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Gadwal, convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 for thb offence punishable under Section 3O2 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also to pay a flne of Rs.1O,OOO/-, and in case of default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for slx months, and accused No.1 was further convicted and sentenced to a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.S,OOO/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶23

Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the appellant/accused arrd learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶24

¶25

KS,J&JAK,J Crl A No ll20 of20l6

¶26

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2012 around 12:00 noon, the appellant poured kerosene on his wife (hereinafter referred to as 'deceasedJ and lit fire. There were constant fights amongst them. PWs.S, 6 and 7 who are the neighbors rushed to the house of the deceased and found the deceased with severe burns without any clothes on her body. The appellant was also found in the house and he went away on seeing PWs.5 to 7. Irnmediately, information was passed to PWs.1 and 2, who are the parents of deceased. PWs.S, 6 and 7 and others took the deceased to Kurnool hospital. She died on the same day, after she was taken to the hospita-I. PW15, who was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the deceased at O5:00 P.M. Immediately thereafter, the learned Magistrate/PWl4, who went to record Dying Declaration in some other case, on receipt of requisition from the duty Doctor, has recorded the statement of the deceased and concluded the same at O5:35 P.M. Thereafter, PW17/Head Constable recorded tire statement of deceased at 09:3O P.M. On the basis of statement recorded by PW17, Station House Officer registered a case at 11:OO P.M. on the same day. The

¶27

¶28

KS.J&.'AK.J (lrl A.No.l 120 of20 !6

¶29

Police then conclucted the scene of offence panchanama at the house of the appellant and thereafter inquest proceedings were conducted. The body was then sent for post-mortem examination. post-Mortem Examination Doctor who conducted Post Mortem Examination opined that the deattr of deceased was on account ofburns.

¶30

Having concluded investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against accused Nos.l to 3. During.course of trial, accused No.2 died and case against him was abated. However, the learned Sessions Judge found accused No.3 not guilty of the offence.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are three dying declarations i.e., vide Ex.p4, which was recorded by the learned Magistrate/ pW 14 around O5:30 P.M., Ex.P5 which was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector ol Police/pW15 at O5:00 p.M. and statement which was recorded by pW17 at O9:30 p.M. All the three are fabricated for the reason that no intimation was given to the learned Magistrate to record the Dying Declaration. Further, the learned Magistrate stated in Ex.p4 that hands of deceased were completely burnt as such he has taken

¶32

¶33

KS.J&JAK.J Crl.A.No.l120 of 2016

¶34

., '..i

¶35

right leg thumb impression of the deceased. If the^version of Magistrate is to be believed, left thumb impressionⁱⁿ ' Exs.PS and P7 are fabricated. . .

¶36

Learned counsel further submits that though^PWs.S, 6 and 7 have stated that they went to the house^of appellant, however, they have not seen the^appellant setting deceased on fire. In such circumstances,^{benefit of} doubt has to be extended for the reason of there^{being no} eye witness and fabricating the evidence, i.e., statement of deceased under Exs.P5 and P7.

¶37

On the other hand, learned Public^Prosecutor submits that there is no reason why PWs.S, 6 and^{7 who} are independent witnesses, would speak anything^against the appellant. Police Officers who recorded^{Exs.PS and P7} are responsible Police Officers and there is no^{necessity to} fabricate evidence.

¶38

Having gone through the record, PWs.S, 6 and⁷ heard the deceased crying for help and they rushed to^her house. The house door was closed and they^forcibly opened it. There they found the deceased on^{flames and} also the appellant in the house. Apart from the^appellant

¶39

,,/

¶40

¶41

KS,J&JAK.J Crl A.\o.l120 ol20l6

¶42

and the deceased there was no one else in the house. Deceased was taken to the hospital. The statement of deceased was recorded by learned Magistrate/pWl4 who had gone to the hospital on requisition to record the statement in another case. However, the duty Doctor requested the Magistrate to record the statement of the deceased herein. In the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate, it is stated that there was fight in between the deceased and the appellant in the morning at 10:OO A.M. Appellant beert her. In the afternoon, the appellant came back and whilc the deceased was sleeping, appellant poured kerosene and burnt her. Similar is the statement made in Exs.PS and P7. Even in Exs.p5 and p7, which were recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of police and Constable, the reason given by the deceased was that the appellant came home in intoxicated condition and poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire.

¶43

Even if the statements recorded by the Assistant SubInspector of Police and Constable are not taken into consideration, there is no reason why the statement recorded by learned Magistrate cannot be relied upon. It is not as though the Dying Declaration is the only evidence

¶44

¶45

KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.l120 of20l6

¶46

that was placed before the Court. PWs.S, 6 and 7 who were independent witnesses, have gone to the scene of offence and found that the appellant was present in the house behind closed door which was forcibly opened and the deceased was on Iire. The Dying Declaration made by the deceased to the learned Magistrate is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.S, 6 and 7. There is no reason to disbelieve either the statement made by the deceased to the :l learned Magistrate or the evidence of PWs.S, 6 and 7, who are independent witnesses. However the version given in Exs.PS and P7 is consistent with the statement recorded by Magistrate and evidence of PWs.S, 6 and 7.

¶47

According to the investigation and also statement of the deceased, the appellant was in intoxicated condition when the incident happened.

¶48

The Honble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddg u. State of AP1 held as follows:

¶49

*29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the piuotal questton of intention, u.tith are and caution, as that utill decide uthether the case false under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 3O4 tr. Mang

¶50

t (zoOO) ll Supreme Court Cases 444

¶51

KS,J&JAK,J Crl A No I120 of20l6

¶52

¶53

pettA or insignificant matter - plucking of a fruit, straging of cattle,^quarrel of children, utterance of^a rude utord or euen an objectionable glance, may lead to altercatiorus and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motiues like reuenge, greed,^jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There mag be no intention. There mag be no premeditation. In fact, there mag not euen be ciminalitg. At the other end of the spectrum, there mag be cases of murder tahere the accused attempts to auoid the^penalty for murder by attempting to put forth^{acase that there u.tas no intentionto cause} death. it^i.s for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not conuerted into offence^punishable under Section 304 part I/ il or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murden are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered aenerallg from a combination of a feut or seueral of the follotuing, among their, circumstances; i) nature of the urcapon used; (ii) uhether the tueapon u.tas carried bg the accused or Lua.s picked up from the spot;⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ uthether the blow is aimed at a uital part of the bodg; (iu) the amount of force employed in causing injury; @) uhether the act tuas in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (ui) uheth.er the incide3nt occurs bg chance or whether there u.tas ang premeditation; (uii) whether

¶54

¶55

KS,J&JAK,J Crl.A.No.l120 of2016

¶56

there was ang prior enmitg or whetlrer the deceased was a stranger; (uiii) whether there was anA graue and sudden prouocation, and if so, the cause for such prouocation; (ix) uhether it uas in the heat of , passion; (x)tuhether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue aduantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual mantuer; (i) uthether the accused dealt a single blor.u or seueral blows. The aboue list of circumstances is, o/ cours e, not exhaustiue and there mag be seueral other special circumstances with reference to indiuidual cases u.thich mag throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it mag.

¶57

It is not in dispute that the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling constantly on the date of the incident and the appellant was in drunken condition. Pursuant to the fight amongst them, it is apparent that the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and lit her on fire. From the said events, it cannot be said that burning by appellant was premeditated and it happened due to fight in between spouses and heat of passion. The act of appellant falls within exception 4 of 300 IPC.

¶58

Admittedly, the appellant was suffering from chest pain and breathlessness during detention in jail and he was taken to the hospital where they found Severe Left

¶59

¶60

KS.J&JAK,J Crl.A No.l l20 of20l6

¶61

Ventricular Dysfunction and Selerotic Arotic Valve. He was admitted in NIMS, hospital by jail authorities with the said ailments.

¶62

In view of the observations made by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment in the present facts of the case, the case falls under Section 304 _ II of IPC and not under 302 of IpC. Accordingly, conviction under Section 3O2 of IPC is set aside. However, the appellant is convicted under Section 3O4 - II of IpC and sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

¶63

15 Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶64

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The lll Additional District and Sessions^{Judgeat Gadwal(with records,if} any)

¶69

The Judicial Magistrate of^{First Class, Alampur.}

¶70

The Superintendent, Charlapally^{Central Jail, Medchal MalkaigiriDistrict-}

¶71

The Station House Officer, Rajoli^{Police Station, Mahabubnagar District.}

¶72

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶73

One CC to Sri Ra.iagopallavan^{Tayi, Advocate} IOPUCI

¶74

¶75

Two CD Copies

Kanr/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1120 of 2016

g1 ATE
\.r', I
\t
/
'---*:-i;-

¶82

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶83

,
),oU4

Golla Meddileti, Mahabubnagar Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Meddileti, Mahabubnagar Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boddu Thirupathi, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

The State of a.P., Vs Alampally Krishna Reddy

Gopal Bahadur , Basheer Ahmed, Warangal., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Parshapu Rukma Rao , Narayana, Rr..Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Peddapally Chandram , Rama Chandram, Medak Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Godugu Bixapathi, Medak Dt. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd