Partly allowed

Nallagandla Venkat Reddy, Medak Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024CRLA/1324/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana examined a criminal appeal against conviction for murder. The court distinguished between premeditated murder and crimes arising from sudden fights in heat of passion, exercising Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for murder reduced to deathlasting absent, but actually rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304-I IPC; conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside.

Nallagandla Venkat Reddy, Medak Dt., Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^341e I

¶2

NOTE : The AppellanUAccused No.1 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 02-01-2023 in l.A.No.1 ot 2022 in Crl.A.No.1324 of 2016.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1324 of 2016

¶9

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled 02-12-2016 passed in S.C.No.221 ot 2014 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Additional District & Sessions Judge at tt/edak.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Nallagandla Venkat Reddy, S/o Narsa Reddy, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Sulthanpur village, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District.

¶12

...AppellanUAccused No.1

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C. Pratap Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri Palle Sriharinath

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER And

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEANIL KIJMAR JIIKANTI

¶21

CRTMINAL APPEAL No.1324 OF 2016

¶22

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

¶23

The appellant/Al was convicted for the ofl'ence under Section 3O2 irnd 3O7 IPC and sentenced ro undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, respectively vide judgment in S.C.No.22l ot 2014 dated 02.12.2016 pasr;ed by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak. Aggrieved by the s€rme, present Appeal is frled.

¶24

Heard Sri^().Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sli Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additiona_l public Prosecutor for the State.

¶25

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased who is the brother of^r.W.1, was stabbed twice by the appellantlAl on O7.O4.2O14. According to P.W. 1, who is the brother of the deceased, he alorrg with his deceased brother went to Sulthanpur Village in view oI the elections around 7.OO a.m in the morning. They returned to their village around 6.00 p.m, after canvassing at Sangareddy. V/hile the deceased and p.W. I were returning in their car, the appellant stopped the car and abused them in hlthy

¶26

¶27

language. The said verbal dual was on account of both of them belonging to two different political parties. Both P.W. 1 and the deceased returned to their house. Thereafter, appellant again called P.W. 1 on phone and abused him in hlthy language. P.W. 1 switched off his mobile phone. Then both the appellant and ,A'2 (acquitted accused) whose house was at a distance of 50 yards from the house of P.W. 1, went to the house of P.W. 1 and started abusing P.W. 1 in filthy language. The deceased brother was in the house and on hearing the appellant and another abusing P.W. 1, he came out and questioned the appellant for abusing his brother-P.W. 1. Then, A,1 attacked the deceased on his chest and also injured P.W. 1, when P.W. 1 tried to rescue his deceased brother. Immediately, the other villagers, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 went to the scene and deceased was taken to the hospital. Ex.P1 complaint was filed by P.W. 1, narrating the incident of committing murder of his deceased brother.

¶28

The Police, after conducting investigation, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 3O2 and 307 of IPC. Under Section 302 IPC for murdering the deceased and under Section 307 for attacking P.V/. 1 \Mith an intention^{of killing} him

¶29

¶30

Learned Sr:ssions Judge having considered the evidence placed on record by the prosecution found that A2 was not guilty of the offence and acquitted him. However, convicted the appellant-A1 un<ler Section 302 IPC simplicitor.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that even admitting the evidence of the prosecution witr esses, no offence of murder is macle out since there was no premeditation in the facts of the present case. In fact, on accounl of the elections, there were fights in between P.W. 1 and the appellant. The deceased had nothing to do with the differences irL between P.W. 1 and the appellant. In fact, P.W. I and the appellant were Iighting since morning and in the evening when he went to his house, the incident happened. The alleged act of stabbing the deceased was not with an intention to commit murder but due to the events that happened throughout the day and it was on tl e spur of the moment. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the jud;,ments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of i)Mariappan v. lState rep. by Inspector of Policel, wherein it was held as follo'vs:

¶32

t ArR 2o2a sc 253

¶33

¶34

*1O. It ll)ould also be apt here to refer to the judgement of Suind.er Kumar Vs. Union Territory, ChandigarlE, uherein this Court had laid douLn tlrc grounds to inuoke Exception 4 to Section 3O0 IPC:

¶35

:ta,'

¶36

"7. To inuoke this exception four reqirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it utas a sudden fight; (ii) there uas no premeditation; (iii) the act u)as done in a heat of pa"ssion; and (iu) the assaiLant had not taken ang undue aduantage or acted in a cruel martrler. The cause of the quarrel is not releuant no is it releuant uho offered the prouocation or started the ossault. The number of usounds caused duing th.e outtrrence is not a decisiue foctor but uhat is important is that the occln'rence must haue been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must haue acted in a fit^{of anger. Of course,the offender must not haue token ang undue} aduantage or aded in a cruel monner- Where, on a sudden quanrel, o person in the heat of th.e mom-ent picks up a u)eapon rthich is handg and causes injuies, one of uLhich proues fatal, te utould be entitled to the benefit of this exception prouided he has not acted cruellg."

¶37

7. In Mohd. Ahsan v. State of lJaryana2, the Hontrle

¶38

Supreme Court held as follows:

¶39

"13. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses themselves, it would reveal that there is no premeditation. The incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances by deceased Vikrant @ Chintu were aimed^qt him and, therefore, he retaliated by abusing the deceased. This was followed^{by a heated exchange betweenthem. They grappledout of the} building of the Dhaba. Though the witnesses were successful in separating them, the accusetl-Appellant rushed lo his car, pulled out a bottle from the driver's seat side, broke it on the bumper of the car and attacked the deceased.

¶40

h is thus clear thal the incidenl occurred without premeditation, in o sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The eyidence would also nol show that the accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present case wouldfall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC-"

¶41

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that as argued by the learned Senior Counsel, the offence will not fall within

¶42

Section 304-I of IPC and it was a premeditated murder. Al had

¶43

carried a lcrife and he had stabbed the deceased twice on his

¶44

'^{AIR2024supre.ecourt2533}

¶45

¶46

chest ald that i:t itself would reflect the intention orL part of the appellant to commit murder.

¶47

In the judgments cited by the learned Senior Oounsel, the Hon'ble Suprem,: Court held that when the incident happened without premedi.ation and in a sudden frght in a heated passion and upon quarr-'I, the act would fa_ll within the ex<:eption 4 of Section 3OO of IPC.

¶48

Even in the present case, accepting the narration of p.W. 1, there was f,rght in between P.W. 1 and the appellant since rnorning. Even irr the evening when the incident has taken place while there was zLbusive exchange of words in between p.W. 1 and the appellant, the deceased went there and supported his \ brother-P.W. 1 and questioned the appellant. In a fit of anger, the appellant stabbe<l the deceased twice.

¶49

In the pre:;ent circumstances, there was no enmity in between the appellant and the deceased. There was a fight in betweert P.W. 1 and the appellant and in the heat of passion, he had stabbed thr: deceased, who intervened. In the present circumstances, i1 ca,not be said that there was any kind of

¶50

¶51

I I

¶52

premeditation that was entertained by the appellant to cause death of the deceased.

¶53

72' In view of the above discussion, folowing the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, the conviction recorded against the appellant under section 302 Ipc is set aside. However, the appellant is convicted under Section 3o4-I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The conviction under 3or oflpc is a-lso set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 326 of IpC and sentenced to seven yea_rs rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently

¶54