Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024CRLA/962/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal partly by setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicting the appellant under Section 304-I IPC. The court held that the sudden fight, heat of passion, and absence of undue advantage or cruel manner warranted the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the sentence to seven years.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Peddapally Chandram , Rama Chandram, Medak Dt., Vs the… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAILSLIP:ThePetitioner/Accusedwasdirectedtobereleasedonbailbythe order of the High^{Courtdated30.102022in l A No l of 2021 in Crl A No' 962 of} 2016

¶2

[^341s ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE^{FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEANIL KUMAR JUKANTI}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO:9 62 0F 2016}

¶8

Appeal filed^{underSection 37AQ) of Cr'P C', against the Judgmentdated} 02-09-20'1 5^{passedin S,C.No 13 of 2015on the file of the Court of the Vl} AdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudgeatSiddipet,IvledakDistrict.

¶9

Betvveen:

¶10

Peddapallv Chandram @^{Rama Chandram,S/o Anjaiah, Occ: Private Employee'} R/o. B6igally,^{Siddepet. MedakDistrict.}

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{Of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor' High courtat Hyderabad} for the State of^{Telaingana and the State of A'P',}

¶13

...ResPondenUCom PIa^{ina nt}

¶14

Gounsel for the^APPellant : Sri. P Prabhakar^ReddY

¶15

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

¶16

The Court delivered^{the following:}

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.962 OF 2016

¶20

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

¶21

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated O2.O9.2OL5 in S.C.No.13 of 2015, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Siddipet, convicting the appellant/accused^'for the offences under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

¶22

The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 3O2 of IPC for committing murder of his wife on the night of 31.05.2012. PWl is the de facto cornplatnant and father of the deceased. The deceased was married to the appellant and they had two sons. PW2 is one son. After marriage, according to PW1, they lived happily. However, ttre appellant started harassing the deceased. 15 days prior to the death of the deceased, she was beaten by the appellant and driver out of the house and deceased went to the house of PWl. She started.staying there. However, the appellant promised that he would take care of the deceased-wife and children, for which reason, deceased went to the house of the appellant along with younger son of PW1. The younger son of

¶23

¶24

PW1 dropped the deceased and went back. On the next^day morning, PW1 received information that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and died.

¶25

The specilic case ofthe prosecution is that the deceased who is the wife of the appellalt and son/PW2 were in^the house, when the incident happened. According to^{PW2, his} mother committed suicide. He narrates that 15 days^{prior to} the incident, the deceased and PW2 went to^their grandmother's house and the appellant called them^back from his grandmother's house.

¶26

The defense of the appellant is that the^deceased committed suicide. PW2 who was son, though^declared hostile to the prosecution case during cross examination,^he spoke about the alleged suicide committed by^{the deceased'} However, PW2 states that the father^{was beating his mother} and they went to their^{grandparents place. One day prior to} the date of incident, they came back to^{the house.The} appellant returned in the night at around^{1 1:0O P.M. in} drunken condition. PW2 opened the^{door and the deceased} abused the accused for coming in^{a drunken condition.When} the accused went outside and slept in^{the verandah, PW2 saw} his mother hanging.

¶27

¶28

¶29

The appellant even in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination stated that the deceased hanged herself and died. She was taken to the hospital.

¶30

After the complaint was given by PWl to the Police, Police went to the scene, conducted scene of offence palchanama and inquest proceedings were also conducted. The body was sent for Post Mortem Examination. PW6/Doctor, who examined the deceased, found injuries. PW6 chief examination is extracted: -

¶31

" 1 . Contusion ouer the neck mostlg on its ight side extending obout 10 cm and 12 cm in dimensions.

¶32

Contusion with blackened area ouer the chest about 12 cm x 16 cm in dimensions, ertending belou the root of the neck to belou-.t down utords.

¶33

Veins is the aboue said area prominent blackend.

¶34

Bleeding from th.e ears on both sides seen, abrasion ouer the ight side 4 fingers.

¶35

Ting abrasion ouer the lefi. thigh tab out 2 x 4 cms in dimensions.

¶36

Lacerated tuound ouer lefi leg belout knee about 2 x 6 cms in dimension^1A cm in deep.

¶37

Internal injuries:

¶38

Hgoid bone broken, area corlgested on its ight side.

¶39

Bodg in its state of earlg putification. All the injuries mentioned tuere of ante mortem in nature, might haue occurred uLithin 48 hours prior PME

¶40

Additio nal ob s eru ation:

¶41

¶42

Hgoid bone u-tith its contents nearbg sent to FSL examination.

¶43

The cause of death of the deceased to the best of mg knouLledge is due to multiple injuries. "

¶44

The specific case of the appellant is that the deceased died committing suicide by hanging herself. The appellant did not dispute his presence in the house when the incident has taken place. Even PW2 stated that the appellant came home in a drunken condition in night. Once the presence of the appellant is admitted by himself and his speciflc plea is that the deceased had committed suicide, the burden shifts on to appellant under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, to^prove that death was not homicidal, but suicidal. In the background of admission by appellant, evidence of PW2, the initial burden that is on the prosecution is discharged.

¶45

According to PW6, the cause of death was multiple injuries. Even the Hyoid bone was fractured and according to Doctor, there was contusion over the Hyoid bone and the reason stated was manual^pressure that was applied.^When the police went to the scene of offence, there was^nothing found to arrive at a conclusion regarding commission^of suicide.

¶46

B. The defense taken by the appellant is contrary to the medical evidence. There are contusions on the chest, bleeding

¶47

¶48

from both ears on both sides and there were abrasions over the right side four fingers, abrasion on the left thumb and lacerated wound below knee. The said'injuries clearly indicate that deceased was severely beaten. Even the evidence of Doctor that the Hyoid bone was fractured due to manual strangulation has to be considered. A11 the said injuries are not explained by the appellant. Only denying the knowledge of the injuries and stating that the deceased committed suicide while he was in the house, will not discharge his burden, shifted on to him under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.

¶49

9 . PW2 states that the appellant was in drunken condition when he arrived at the house. It is specilic case of the prosecution that during investigation they came to know that the appellant was under influence of alcohol and in an intoxicated condition, he had beaten her black and blue.

¶50

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Rafiq o. State

¶51

of Madhga Pra.d.eshl held as follows:

¶52

"The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide of either description, punishable under Section 3O4 of IPC, has engaged the attention of Courts in India for over one-and-a-

¶53

'^{2018SCCOnline MP 1806}

¶54

¶55

half century, since the entactment of the IPC. A welter of case law, on the aforesaid aspect eists, including perhaps several hindered rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the. term "like1y"ⁱⁿ several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainity that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the^person. Section 300 IPC which defines "murder",^however refrains from the use of term likelg, w}:,.ic}r reveals absence of ambiguity ieft on beha-lf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often diffrcult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the^crimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act.^{There is} a very wide variance of degree of intention^and knowledge among both the crimes."

¶56

Further the Honble Supreme Court in State of^A.P.

¶57

o. P,a:gan arapu Punnaggaz held^{as follows:}

¶58

"21. From the above conspectus, it^{emerges that} whenever a Court is confronted with the^question whether the offence is 'murder' of tulpable^homicide not amounting to murder', on the facts of^{a case,} it will be convenient at the first stage would^be, whether the accused has done an act by doing^which he has caused the death of another. Proof^{of such} connection between the act of the accused^{and the} death, of such casual connection between^{the act of} the accused amounts to^{"culpable homicide" as} defined in Section 299. lf the answer to this^question is prima facie found in the affirmative,^{the stage for} considering the operation of Section 300,^Penal Code, is reached. This is the^{stage at whichthe} Court should determine whether the^{facts provedby} the prosecution bring the case within the^{ambit of} any of the four clauses of the definition of^'murder'

¶59

' ltszoy^{+ scc :ez}

¶60

¶61

contained in Section 400. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence wouid be 'cuipable homicide not amounting to murder,, punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectiveily, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case come within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would stiil be tulpable homicide not amounting to murder,, punishable under the flrst part of Section 304, penai Code. "

¶62

The circumstances of the injuries found on the body of the deceased clearly indicate that the appellant had assaulted the deceased, resulting in multiple injuries. However, keeping in view that there were earlier differences between spouses and the assault by the appellant on the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and pursuant to a fight in between them, Exception-4 of Section 3OO IpC has to be considered, i which reads as under:

¶63

"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed. uitLnut premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and u.tithout the offender's hauing taken undue aduantage or acted. in a cruel or unusuol mannet"

¶64

The Hon'lole Supreme Court 1n Dattatraga a. State of Maharashtras decided on OI.O2.2O24 under simiiar

¶65

3 crl.A.No.666 of 2ol2

¶66

¶67

circumstances^{converted the conviction from 3O2 IPC to} 304_I IPC.

¶68

Accordingly,^{the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is} set aside. However,^{the appellant is sentenced to undergo} seven years imprisonment^{for the offenceunderSection} 304-I of IPC^{for which he is now convicted'}

¶69

This Criminal^{Appeal ispartly-allowed' Since the} appellant is^{on bail, the trial Court shall takesteps to cause} his appearance^{and send him to jail to serve out remaining} part of sentence.^{The period of imprisonment, if any, already} undergone by^{the appellantsha1lbe set-off}

¶70

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA^RAo JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶71

¶72

To, 1. The Vl Additional^{DistrictandsessionsJudge, Siddipet,Ir/ledakDistrict. (with} records)

¶73

The Superintendent,^{Central Jail, Cherlapally, Rang Reddy District'(By Speed} Post)

¶74

3' The Additional^{Judicial Magistrate of Frist Class, Siddipet,tt/ledakDistrict} +. The Station House^{Officer, llTown Police Station, Siddipet, Medak District} 5. Two CCs to^{Public Prosecutor,High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.^(OUT) 6. one CC to Sri. P Prabhakar^{Reddy'Advocate[OPUC]} 7. Two CD Copies DL/gh

HIGH COURT

DATEDl.1411112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.962^{of 2016}

¶81

1 i._ S
,{
L,^
+
((t'
13 llrLj r24
(:
{=
ot-Snalgtrf,o