Partly allowed

Kumba Nagender, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC19 Nov 2024CRLA/1217/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal in part, reducing the conviction from murder (IPC 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (IPC 304-II), and sentenced the appellant to eight years of imprisonment instead of life imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction reduced from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-II IPC; sentence reduced to eight years' imprisonment.

Kumba Nagender, Medak Dt., Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

a34281

¶2

IN THE^{HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER ANO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. SARATH}

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:^{1217 OF 2016}

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 374 of^{Cr.P.C., against the Judgmentdated} 09.11.2016^passed in^{S.C.No.132/2016,on the file of the Court of the XVI} Additional District and^{Sessions Judge-cum-XVlAdditional MetropolitanSessions-} Judge, Cyberabad, at Malkaigiri,^{Ranga Reddy District.} Between:

¶8

Kumba Nagender, S/o. Subba^{Rao,aged 35 years, R/o' Vargal Village'Gaiwel} Mandal, Medak Diskict.

¶9

...AppellanUAccused

¶10

AND

¶11

The State Of Telangana, Rep.^{by PublicProsecutor, High Court, Hyderabad'}

¶12

...RespondenUComPlai^nant

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶14

Petition under section 389(1)^{of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High court maybe} pleased to suspend the execution of^{sentencepassed in s.c-No.132of 2016,} dated 09-11-2016 on^{the file of the XVI Additional Districtand sessionsJudge-} cum-XVl Additional Metropolitan^{sessions Judge, cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga} Reddy District-and release^{the petitioner/ accused on bail pending cr1 .A.No.'1217} ol 2O16.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant^{: Sri. P. Prabhakar Reddy}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public} Prosecutor

¶17

The Gourt delivered the^following:

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.121 7 0F 201.6

¶20

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'bte Sn Justjce K.Surend.er)

¶21

l. The Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant_accused questioning the Judgment dated og.rr.2016 in SC No.132 of 2016 passed by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, cybearabad at Malkajgiri, R.R District, wherein the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IpC") and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.SOO/_ and in default of payment of line amount, the accused has to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶22

, Heard Sri P. prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Sri Arun Kurrar Dodla, learned Additional pubiic prosecutor for the respondent_State and perused the record

¶23

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve life imprisonment for murdering his brother on 22.OZ.2OlS t\ in the evening.

¶24

-:]T::a-_

¶25

vra.A.[lu-rzt t ol'zv' u

¶26

According^{to the eye witnesses PW'2 (brother-in-law of} the deceased),^{PW.3 (daughter of PW'2)and PW'6(sister-in-} law of the^{appellant and wife of PW'l)' PW'1' deceased and} appellant^{are brothers'PWs'2,3 and 6 stated that while} PW.2 and^{the deceasedwere sitting and consuming liquor} on the^{wall in between the houses of PW'l and PW'2'the} appellant^{went there and stabbedonce in the chest of the} deceased.Hewasshiftedtothehospital,wherehediedon account^{of said injury'}

¶27

¶28

PW. I 1, Doctor^{whoconductedPostMortem} Examination^{statedthat there was one perforatingstab} injury entering^{into the cavity causing injury to heart' left} lung,^{which resulted in his death'}

¶29

Learned^{counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant} tried to^{impressupon this Court stating that the names of} eye witnesses/^{PWs'2, 3 and 6 are not mentionedin the} complaint.^{In the said circumstances'their accountof} witnessing^{the incident is suspicious'}

¶30

¶31

'T.-E{i

¶32

KS,J & SK,J Crl. A.,Yo. l.? l 7 o[ 20 1 6

¶33

¶34

,1. ;

¶35

7 . Alternatively, the counsel submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that the appellant had inflicted injury, the offence u'ould fa.ll under Section 304_II of IpC and not under Section 302 of IpC, since there was one stab injury. The argument of learned counsel that the narnes of pWs.2, 3 and 6 are not mentioned in the complaint is of no consequence. It is not, as though the witnesses are strangers, but neighbours and family members who were present in the house, where the incident happened. Atl the eye witnesses have specifically stated that the appellalt stabbed the deceased, while pW.2 and deceased were sitting on the wall and consuming liquor.

¶36

The motive attributed to the appellant for killing his brother is that the deceased brother was having illicit intimacy with the wife of the appellant namely Muthyalamma. According to p.W.2, the appellant was in drunken condition and also enquired about Muthlayamma. The narration of witnesses p.Ws. I and.2 would go to show that the alieged attack on the deceased brother by the appellant was in a drunken condition and the reason being

¶37

{

¶38

illicit intimacy^{with his wife' On the date of the incident'the} appellant^{went to the scene, stabbed once and fled' The said} conduct^{would go to show that the attack was the result of} the suspicion^{about thedeceased'srelationwiththe} appellant's^{wife. It is not the case that the appellanthad} inflicted^{multiple injuries or waitedat the scene' According} to P.Ws.2^{and 3, he suddenlycame' stabbed onceand fled} fromthescene.Inthepresentfacts,thoughthesaidstab resultedinthedeathoftheappellant,thebackgroundof the circumstances^{of the case leading to the attack cannot} be lost^{sight of' The requirementof certaint5rto cause death} islacking.ltisnotdiffrculttodistinguishculpablehomicide amounting^{to murder punishableunder Section 302 IPC} and culpable^{homicide not amountingto murder punishable} under^{Section 304-I or II IPC' The circumstances that led to} the attack^{have to be looked into to arrive at a conclusion} regarding^{the determination or the certaintyof an accused} to cause^death'

¶39

g. In the^{present circumstancesof the case' keeping in} view the^{drunkenconditionof the appellantas spokento by}

¶40

\ \

¶41

Crl.A.tr'o.l2t7 ol )016

¶42

P.W. I and also the manner in which he was stabbed once on account of the alleged suspicion and the appellant fleeing, this Court is inclined to convert the conviction to Section 304-II IPC.

¶43

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed in part and the appellant shall undergo sentence of imprisonment of eight (08) years.

¶44

Miscellaneous^petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA,/RAO JOINT REGIS.fRAR N sEcTto N OFF ICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVl Additional Metropolitan Sessions- Judge, Cyberabad, at Malkajgin, Ranga Reddy District. (With records)

¶51

2 The Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, Ranga Reddy.

¶52

The Superintendent, Central Prision, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶53

One CC to Sri, P. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

¶54

Two CD Copies

DUgh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911112O24

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1217 of 2016

{ ytE S TA 7E
e
J
o 2 0 0tI ;iilf (>oz
.<br>'r -* -:-., t

¶63

CRIMINAL APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

¶64

cedeA
YN-
d\A<br>

Kumba Nagender, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumba Nagender, Medak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banchodu Vishnu Vs The State of Telangana

Balaji Dongre, Maharastra State Vs P.P., Hyd and 6 Othrs

Prabhu Das , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana