Partly allowed

Ankarla Sattaiah, Nalgonda Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024CRLA/499/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal partly, setting aside the conviction for murder (IPC 302) due to lack of proof regarding motive and direct causation of death, but convicted the appellant of causing grievous hurt (IPC 338) and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 338 IPC and sentenced to two years imprisonment; bail directed.

Ankarla Sattaiah, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE : The AppellanUSole Accused was drrected to be^{releasedon bail by the order} of the High Court dated O9.11.2022 in l.A.No.¹ of^{2O22 in Crl.A.No. 499 of 2016}

¶2

[^341e ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER , AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR^JUKANTI

¶7

cRt MINAL APPEAL NO: 499 OF 2015

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 374(2)^{of Cr.P,C} ,^€gainstthe -Judg-ment^dated 21 03.ZOi6passedinS.C.No.269of^{2015 onthefileof theCourtoftheMetropolitan} Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ankarla Sattaiah @ Satyanarayana, Sio.^{A.Chandraiah,.Age. 3l years,Occ:} Auto Driver, R/o. l.No.6-220/2/D,^{Mahendra Nagar, Chintal, RangaReddy} District. N/o. Chandupatla^(V), Bhuvangiri^{(M)' NalgondaDistrict.}

¶11

...AppellanUSole Accused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Through Public^{Prosecutor,High Courtat} Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUComPlainant

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREITTDER AND

¶19

THE HON'BLE SHRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.499 OF 2016

¶21

DGMENTT @er Hon'ble Sri Justice Kswender)

¶22

This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.03.2016 in S.C.No.269 of 2015 on the frle of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting the appellant/accused of the offence under Section 3O2 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPCJ and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1O,OO0/- and in default of pa5,,rnent of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four months.

¶23

Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶24

Briefly the case of the prosecution is that on 23.01 .2014 while PW. 1 , who is the mother of the deceased, and the deceased were going on the road, the appellant/accused, who is brother in law i.e., deceased husband's brother, drove the auto trolley behind the back

¶25

IS.J&JIK,J Crl..1 'o 199 o"f20l6

¶26

¶27

of the deceased and dashed her, due to which, she^fell aside and the deceased received fracture injuries on her right leg. The deceased was shifted to the hospital^{and on} 29.01.2OI4, she succumbed to^{death. Initialiythe} statement of the deceased was recorded by^{PW.6 and the} crime was registered under Section 307^IPC'

¶28

The motive of the appellant/accused,^{as statedby} the prosecution, is that there^were criminal^{cases against} him, which were registered at^{the instance of the deceased.} The appellant was insisting the^{deceased to withdraw the} cases and since the deceased did^{not agree,the} appellant/accused hit the^{deceasedwith his auto trolley} bearing No.AP lOW 5371.

¶29

The learned Sessions Judge examined^{PWs. 1 to 10} and marked Exs.Pl to P9 and MO.l.^{Accordingto the} evidence of PW. 1, who was^{presentalong with the} deceased at the time of incident^{stated that the appellant} hit them. As per the evidence of^{PW.2, who isan} independent witness and who shifted the^{deceasedto the} hospital, the appellant hit the deceased.^{The learned}

¶30

¶31

KS,J&JAK,J Crt.A No.199 oJ 20t6

¶32

¶33

I I

¶34

Sessions Judge found that the death of the deceased was on account of accident and is punishable under Section 3O2 lPC, placing reliance on t}le evidence of both PWs. 1 and 2.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellarrt/accused would submit that there is any amount of discrepancy in the versions given by the witnesses. Further, in the complaint, there was no mention of PW.l accompanying the deceased when she was allegedly hit by the auto trolley of the appellanti PW.2 stated that he tried to chase the auto trolley, which dashed against the deceased, however, he could not catch him. PW.2 then shifted tl'.e deceased and PW. 1 into an auto and took them to their house and from there, he took them to Gandhi Hospital. In the said circumstances, the question of PW.2 identi$ing the appellant does not arise. Accordingly, both the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 cannot be considered.

¶36

karned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there was a motive to commit murder of the deceased arrd the appellant deliberately hit the deceased with auto

¶37

¶38

KS,J&JAK,J Ctl.A.No.199 oJ20l6

¶39

r-1

¶40

trolley resulting in her death. The death was on account of fracture injury and direct result of the accident.

¶41

Having gone through the evidence on record, the prosecution claimed that the reason for causing the accident deliberately was the cases that were filed by the deceased against the appellant. Since the deceased was not inclined to withdraw the cases, the appellant hit her with his auto trolley from back side. But, the prosecution has not come up with the details of cases which were frled by the deceased against the appellant. In the absence of any such details being given, it cannot be said that there was deliberate intent or motive on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased.

¶42

PW.7 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased body. According to him, the cause of death was complications and fracture of long bones. PW.7 has not given any details regarding complications. In fact, the Doctor who treated t1:e deceased was not examined. In the absence of examining the treating Doctor, it cannot be said that death was direct

¶43

KS.J&JlK,J Ctl.ANo 499 of20t6

¶44

¶45

result of the fracture injury received in the accident by the deceased and the complications. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the motive aspect, the conviction can only be under Section 338 IPC.

¶46

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IpC is hereby set aside. The appellalt/accused is convicted of the offence under Section 338 IpC for causing grievous injury in the accident and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. Since the appellant/accused has already undergone imprisonment for more than two years, no further orders are required to be passed.

¶47

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly a1lowed.

¶48

Miscellaneous Petitions, if aly, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

¶49

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGIS RAR

,TRUE COPY/I

SECTION OFFICER

To,

i ]|e lYlelrgpolitan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with records)}

¶54

The lll Additionat Chief Metropolitan iMagistrate, Hyderabad.' 3. The Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar police Siation, Hyderabad. 4 The .^{Su,r_erintendent,Cenkal prison, Cherlapally,Meichal,} Ranga Reddy

¶55

_^{Diskict. (By Special messenger)}

¶56

One CC to Sri^{p. prabhakaiR6ddy,} Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutoi, nrgrr court for th6 state of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶57

Two CD Copies Njb/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511112024

JUDGMENT

f HE sI.4 r.c
(1
C.
o I'
19 DEr ml
a
* * ,/
qr\TCl\ c

¶63

CRLA.No.499 of 2016

¶64

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Ankarla Sattaiah, Nalgonda Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankarla Sattaiah, Nalgonda 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

Ghousia Begum, Mahabubnagar Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Penchala Raju (A-1) Godavarikhani and 2 Otrs., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Kolipaka Ramesh, Warangal Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

Sabavath Tirupataiah Vs the State of Telangana

D.Jana Bai, Hyderabad., Vs Mangani Sailu, Dharmapally (M) and Anr, Rep Pp.

D.Venkanna, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd