Conviction appeal for murder under Section 302 IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act offences based on sole eyewitness testimony of the deceased's mother. Court upheld conviction, finding her evidence consistent and corroborated by her own injury certificate.
Criminal appeal dismissed; trial court conviction upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I i
BAILSLIP:TheAppellant/Accusedwasdirected^tobereleasedonbailbythe order of tteHigilLou;i't"Jrlrz-2022made in lA No.1 of 2022in Crl.A.No.1111of2017
IN THE HIGHCOURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAYOFfEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLESRI.IU.SiICE ANIL KUMARJUKANTI
CRIMINAL APP EAL NO:1111 0F 2017
Appealunder Section 374 (2) ot Cr'P C againstthe Judgmentdated01-09- 2017 madein S.C./S.T S C No 51 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge forTrial of Offences underSC/ST (POA)Act-cum-Vll Additional District and SessionsJudge,RangaReddy District at LB Nagar'
Between:
TalariNaresh,s/o.LateNagappa,Aged25years,R/o.ogipurVillage,Tandur fr4lnOat, RangaReddY District
...APPellant/ Accused
AND
The Stateof Telangana' RepresentedlcySub lnsnector of Police' Karankote Police stationn'ngl'ft"iii'6liiili'Cd-ppqgnteh uv the Public Prosecutor' for the stateot r"r''ig'XJlil6h"c;i'i ot.judicatureirf Hvderabad
... ResPondent
Counselfor the APPellant
Counselfor the ResPondent
Sri KarriMurali Krishna
Sri ArunKumar Dodla AdditionalPublic Prosecutor
The Courtdeliveredthe following Judgment:
I 1 I
I I i I I i I I i I : i,
-$'-,+-==7
THE }IONOURABLESRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER
AND
THE HON0URABLESRI WSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI(ANTI
(]RIMINAI APPEAL No.1111 OF.2Ol7
JUDGMENT:(per The Hon'bleSri JusticeK.SURENDER)
The appell mt was foundguilty by the learnedSpecirSessions Judge for theollence underSection302 and 323 of the IrLdianPenal Code and Sectir,n3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, 1989' Questioningthe said conviction., present appealwasfi1ec1'
2
of the deceased andthe deceasedstarted from the house on the motorcycle to attenda wedding. At a distance,the appellant threw stones at the deceased,as such, PW'3 immediatelywent back and informed PW.1 aboutthe incident.PW.3 took her to the place where the appellant wasbeating the deceased' PW'1intervenedand appellant hit PW. 1 on the lefteye and pushed her aside, abusing her in frlthy lalguage. Thedeceasedwas hit with a stone, kicked with legs by the appellant, andwas badly injured' PW'1informedher brother PW'2 and others whoshifted the deceased to the GovernmentHospital' Tandur' As already stated,the Police having received information'PW'Swent and recordedthe statementofPW' 1 on12'05'2015' which was registered asFIR.
"i) Contusionover left temporal region of skull of stze 2 x I c.m. with fractureof temporalbone
ii) Left blackeYe PresenL.
iii) Lacerationover chin of size 2 x 1 x O'5 c'ms'
iv) Contusionover right sideof foreheadof 1 x 0'5 cms'
. ;:i -=ta!rFi!rz
3
v) Contusi,rn cver right forearm ofsize of 3 x 2 crns liacture upper end radius.
vi) contusi )n(lver chestwall of size 2 x 1 cms.
vii) Lacera.ion of size 3 x 2x O.5 cms over right grate t.oe with fracture m:tat;rrsa1.
viii) Lacerz tion of size of 3 x 1 x 1cms. over right lou'erend of radius frat turt:."
i) Intracranial h,:mrtrrhage inpontine and temporalregions
The reason of d:ath was massive intracranialhemorrhages econdar5rto head injury le,rding to cardio respiratoryarrest, accor<lingto the opinion of PW.7
ilPW.1 is the rnother of the deceased ald an interested ivitness.Her evidence is not corroborated by PW.3-Narend-er who a11egerlly informed
4
her about the incidental1d tookPW. 1 to the scene. PW.3 turned hostile, as such, the evidenceof PW.1 cannot be believed'
ii) The injuries thatwere found on the deceased could be causedby an accident as admittedby PW.7. Since ttre death was result of an accident, thequestion of convicting the appellantfor causing injuries on the basis ofPW.1's evidenceis incorrect'
iii) The doctorwho treatedPW. lwas not examined' As such'Ex'P15- wound certifrcate ofPW' 1 cannot be consideredas corroborationto PW. 1's evidence.
I i I i tT
5
9 . PW. 1 als c s,t ated that she was injured on the left- eye by the appellant. PW 1.r as treated in the Government HospitiLl at Tandur where the dect ast:r1 died while being treated. Ex.PlS-wound certifrcate reflects that P J/. I received swelling over left eye. Though, the doctor who issued rs< uni. certificate was not examined, it rvill not have aly adverse impac - o'-r the prosecution case. PW. 1 stated th at when she intervened, vrh ile 1.he appellant was attacking her son, t he appellant injured her on thr: eye. Ex.P1S-wound certihcate corroborittes with the version of P\tr/. I about her being present when the incident had taken place and thal the, appellant had assaulted her when she intervened while the appe lart attacked the deceased. It is not the carse of defence that Ex.P15 rvz -s fabricated. Non examination of the doctor who issued Ex.P15 is of no consequence, in the present facts of the case
PW. 1 to the scr,ne 'vas declared hostile, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be Ii considered, ca:rnot be accepted. Though, PW.3 had tzLken PW. I to the scene, hower.e-, PW. t had witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased. As already discussed, PW. 1's intervention resulted in the appellaxt beati rg her on the eye. She received an injury on the eye and shi: was treatr d. 'the hostilit5, of PW.3 in the present irase has no bearing on thr:'eliable and consistent testimony of pW. 1.
It
6
,; X
11.As seen from the injuries,the deceased received B injuries and the doctor alsofound intracranial hemorrhageresulting incardio respiratoryarrest and consequentdeath' The ma-rlnerin which the appellanthad caused injuries,the intent on the part of the appellant to commitmurder isapparent'Fr-rrther'asevident fromthe circumstances,the appellantwas waiting to attack the deceased' It is not the case,that there was any quarrel, pursuant to which the appellantassaulted the deceased'
L2. Thereare no grounds to interfere with the hndingof the learned SpecialSessions Judge,which are reasonable' probableand based on record. in thesaid circumstances'we do not frnd any infrrmity with the hnding ofthe learned Special SessionsJudge' inconvictingthe accused
Sd/- M. RAMANAKRISHNA DEP TY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER
! t
4,.
I I I I i i
HIGH COI'RT
DATED:Odtl02l2025
JUDGMEN T
CRLA.No,,1111 of 2017
a
-)
01 APr 20[ zo
A
* *
c
.e1,-X_t_
DISMISSING THE CRLA
(A-
\r/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the testimony of PW.1, an interested eyewitness (mother of deceased), was reliable despite PW.3 turning hostile
Whether injuries could have been caused by accident rather than by the appellant
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Talari Naresh
The State of Telangana
K. Surender
Anil Kumar Jukanti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
