Dismissed

M.Konda v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024CRLA/419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court held there were no grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings as the reliable witness testimony established an assault, contrary to the suicide claim.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is ordered to appear and be sent to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Pending applications are closed.

M.Konda Vs the State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

BAIL SLIP^{: The Petitioner/ Accused was dire-cted to be released on bail by the} order of the^{High Court oateii"oloildi'ln cn n u p tlo 1000 of 2012 in} Crl.A. No^{419 of 2012'}

¶4

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶5

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶6

MONDAY,^{THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER} '''""- iirvo rHousAND AND TwENTY FouR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER}

¶9

CRIMINA^{LAPPEALNO:419oF 2012}

¶10

Criminal^{Appealfiled under Section Z!+Jl).9tClr P C aqainstthe Judgment} clated 03.05.2012^{passed i'i'Sli i"'ise ot iollon the file of the Court of the} l,rr?i,ip"rit""^{slssi6ns Judge Hyderabad'}

¶11

Between:M.Konda, S/o^{Late Narasimhulu'. Ocq Labour' Fl/o H'No SF 139'}

¶12

il e:l,i;;;t,^{Fii, nrsrt' Banjarahills'Hvderabad}

¶13

...APPellant

¶14

AND

¶15

PS , Ban.iarahills,^HYderabad' The State^{of A.P., through Public Prosecutor'}

¶16

..'ResPodent

¶17

Counsel^{for the Appellant: Sri Duwuri Surya Narayana}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondent : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy'Assistant} Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court^{delivered the following: Judgment}

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^SRI IUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶21

CRIMINAL APP^{EAL N0.419 0F 2012}

¶22

IUDGMENT:

¶23

1.. The appellant^{was tried underSection 302 of IPC, however} the leamed Session Judge^{fotrndthe appellant} Suilty^underSection 304 Part I IPC.

¶24

The case of the^{prosecution is that the deceasedis the sister} of appellant^{and she was taken to the hospitalon28'02'2010 with} serious injuries.^{she was treated in osmania GeneralHospital and} she died on next^{clay i.e., 01.03.2010. Information was given to the} Police on the next^{day regardingher death' According to the} Investigating Officer-PW8^{the dead body was abandoned in the} Osmania General^{Hospital.Havinggone to the hospitalPWS} requested for Postmortem.^{PW9 is the PostmortemDoctor who} founcl the following^iniuries:-

¶25

"1. Transaersly placed sutured^{wound'l-Scm with L4 sutureson} back part of^the both^{parietaland right temporalarea of head'} 2. Suturerl wound Scm^{with 4 sututeson uryer part of occipital} area, 3cm below the injury^No.1

¶26

¶27

Sutwed wound 3cm with 3^{sutures on occipitalarea 2 cm belozo} the injury No.2

¶28

Contused abrasion 3x2^cm on^{backsideof rightear.}

¶29

Abrasion 3x2 cm on left cheek.

¶30

Abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm below^{the chin.}

¶31

7.3 semi circular nail mark abrasions^{each3 mm x'L mm in size on} -L cm outer to mid line. Ieft side lower part of front of neck,

¶32

Abrasion 2x7 cm on rigit side^{backof neck.}

¶33

Abrasion'l-x'l- cm on back of left^{hand 7 cm below the thumb of} left hand.

¶34

Abrasion'lx'l cm on left knei ftont^side.

¶35

Two abrasions 0.5X0.5 cm, 0.5X0.5 cm^{on inner aspect of left} ankle all abooe injuries are reddish^{in color.}

¶36

L2. Scatp contusion 15X1.6cm on right tempero^{both parietaland} occipital rea of head, reddish blue in^color.

¶37

Obliquely placed fracture line on right^{temporal bone which} extending in to right middle cranial fossa ooer^{a total length of I} cm another aertically^placed lracture^{line on right side of occipital} bone which extending in to right^{posteriorcranial} fossa^{to right} middle cranial fossa oaer a total length^{of L5 cm in base of the skull.} 1,4. Difused subdural haemorrhage^{presentooer brain.}

¶38

PW8 received information regarding the^{appellantbeating} the deceased with the pestle. He went^{to the scene and examined} the witnesses and issued FIR against^{the appellant.The case was} registered by PW6 i.e., Sub Inspector of^{Police. On the basisof the}

¶39

¶40

evidence collected,^{charge-sheet was filed for the offenceunder} Section 302^{and 201 of IPC.}

¶41

Learned Session Judge^{framed charges and examined PW1} to PW10 and^{Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 on behalf of the prosecution' MO1 to} MO5 were also^{brought on"record. MO1 is the broken wooden} piece of pestle with^{which the appellantbeat the deceased'}

¶42

The leamed Session Judge^{found that it was the appellant} who had beaten his sister.^{On account of the beating by the} appellant, she died^{on 01.03.2010. However, the learned Session} Judge^{convictedthe appellant for the offenceunder Section304} Part I IPC

¶43

The leamed^{counselappearing on behalf of the appellant} would submit that^{there is a delay of one day in lodging the} complaint, though^{the incidenthappened on 28'02'2010 there was} no complaint^{and the complaintcame to be registeredonly on the} next day. PW1^{and PW2 have partially supported the case of the} prosecution and except the^{evidenceof PW3 there is no other} evidence to infer guilt^{of the appellant.}

¶44

¶45

<br>

¶46

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding of the Leamed Session Judge.

¶47

PW1 is the person who lodged complaint. There are no eye witnesses to the actual assault. PW2 is the neighbor. According to her, on the date of incident 6he and PW3 went to the house of the appellant and found the door locked. They knocked the door and found the deceased lying with injuries to her head. The appellant was standing there. Since the appellant requested PW1, she removed the upper garments of the deceased which was stained with blood and changed with another shirt. Then PW3 macle a phone call for ambulance and the deceased was taken to the Osmania Ceneral Hospital. However in the cross examination PW2 stated that by the time she went to the house, the deceased was found on the second floor again she stated that the deceased was found on the ground floor. She denied having knowledge about PW3 calling for the ambulance. Accordingly the witnesses were treated hostile and again cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, after cross examination by accused. In the cross

,,/

examination, the^{witnesses denied that whatever stated in the}

¶52

chief examination^{was correct.}

¶53

g. PW3 is the witness,^{who stated that he along with PW2 went} to the house of^{deceasedand it was found locked from inside' The} appellant was inside^{and he openedthe door' Inside the house} PW2 and PW3 found^{blood was loosing from the head of the} deceased. PW3 also^{identified the pestle which was markedas} MO1. The pestle^{was at a distanceof three to four feet from where} the deceased was lying^{in the room. The deceased was taken to the} Osmania General^{Hospitalafter PW3called for an ambulance'}

¶54

The argument^{of the learned counselfor the appellant is that} the witnesses PW2^{and PW3 were only identifiedon the next day} of incident and their^{evidencecannot be believed, since they are} planted. The said^{argument cannot be accepted. In fact deceased} was found alive by^{the time she was taken to the hospital andas} seen from the evidence^{of PW9she was treated. Suturedwounds} were found in the postmortem^{examinatiorLwhich indicates} treatment prior to death.

¶55

¶56

Though PW2 had given two versions, however the evidence of PW3 is consistent regarding the appellant being found in the house, when PW2 and PW3 went to the house of appellant. The appellant opened the door which was locked from inside and the deceased was found with bleeding injuries. The defence as suggested to the witnesses is that the deceased jumped from the building and committed suicide.

¶57

If at all the deceased jumped and committed suicide, the same would have been informed in the hospital where the deceased was taken and the deceased would not have been abandoned. Further the postmortem examination Doctor-PW9 also clearly denied the suggestion that the injuries that were found on the body of the deceased was due to fall from a height.

¶58

It is not the quantity of evidence but the quality which has to be looked into. Though PW2 has given divergent versions it would not have any effect on the testimony of PW3 whose evidence is reliable and believable.

Since the appeliant was inside the house with the deceased and found with bleeding injuries, it is for the appellant to explain as to how the deceased received injuries. Even at the scene of offence, panchnama that was conducted, the incident happened in the house of the appellant. If it is the case of the appellant that the deceased committed suicry'e, evidence ought to have been adduced. Merely stating that the deceased committed suicide will not suffice, when the evidence on record clearly indicates assault.

¶63

In the said circumstances, there are no groutrds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed

¶64

The appellant is on bail. The concerned Magistrate shall cause his appearance and send him to prison to serve out, the remaining part of the sentence.

¶65

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶66

closed.

¶67

Sd/. M, RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

/ITRUE COPY//

TION OFFICER

To,

1 The tvletropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad} 2 The Superintendent, Central^{Prison, Charlapally, Medchal MalkajgiriDiskict} 3 Two Cis to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to Sri Duwuri Surya^{Narayana, Advocate} IOPUCI Two CD Copies Yv

¶72

_-..--^'.--..f----t'!!!'t''!

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811012024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.419 of 2012

1 H r. 5 f4
o .,-
? tl lAti ?oh z
(; ,i )

¶78

DISMISSING THE CRLA

¶79

3*("r ofr,*

M.Konda v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Konda v. the State of A.P.

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

M/s Bhargavi Road Transport, Vs M/s Srinivasa Civil works Private Limited

Smt. Kanchan Makhija, Hyd and 3 Otrs., Vs Sashi Arora, Chennai and Anr. Rep Pp.

Mirza Arif Baig Vs Smt a. Nagamani

K.Neeraja , Rajani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vanam Yadagir Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Vs Veerabrahman Shobhan Babu