Munugala Satya Narayana and Another Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

l;r.-
\ ':<br>\ '- -
. iaq

BAIL sLlP : The Appeflants / Accused Nos 1 & 2 were directed to be released on bail by the Order of the High Court dated 07_02_2022 made in l.A.No..l of 2022in Crt.A.No.1362 of 2017

¶3

BAIL'SL|P :^;rhe Appellant / Accused No 3 was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High court dared 07-02-2022 made in I.A.No.1 or 2o2z in Crt.A.No. l621 of 2017

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL APPE AL NOS : 1362 AND 1621 OF 2017

¶9

trY

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: { 362 0F 2017

¶11

Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.p.C. against the Judgment dated 28_07_ 2015 made in s.c.No.10 of 2o1s on the file of the court of the principal sessions Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy.

¶12

Between:

¶13

Munugala Satya Narayana, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ Agriculture

¶14

Munugalla Mallesham, S/o. Satya Narayana, Aged about 21 years, Occ Student

¶15

Both are R/o. Utarpally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District

¶16

...Appellant / Accused No 1& 2

¶17

AND

¶18

State of Telanggng, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana 5nd the State of Andhra piadesh, Hyd^'

¶19

...Respondent / Gomplainant

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor

r'

ir

;5

l:.,

GRIMINAL APPEF,L N0: 1621^{OF 2017}

¶27

Appeal undr:r Serction 374⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C. agarnst^{the Judgmentdated28-07-} 2017 made in S.C No^'10 of 2015 on the file of the^{Court of the PrincipalDiskict and} Sessions Judge, Medal: District at Sangareddy-

¶28

Between:

¶29

Beqari Anjaiah @ Anjaneyulu, S/o. Anthaiah,^{Aged irbout} Ill^{years, Occ} Student, R, o L.lttarpally Village, Sanga Reddy^Mar dal,^{Ivledak District,} Telangana {:itate

¶30

...Appellant / ,Accused No 3

¶31

AND

¶32

The State or Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hvdeiabad, for the State of Telangana and the^{State of Andhra} Pradesh

¶33

...Respondent i Complainant

¶34

Counsel for the A ppellant Sri K Amarnath Reddy .'-

¶35

Counsel for the R,rspondent

¶36

Sri Arun Kumar Dodlir Additional Public Prosecutc,r

¶37

The Court deliverr:d the following Common Judgment :

¶38

d

¶39

.-}{.

¶40

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶41

''' CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1362 of 2OLZ and, L62]- of 2Ot7 COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶42

Criminal Appeal No.1362 of 2Ot7 is fiied by appellants lAt and. A2 and cr1.A.No. 162 I of 2ol7 is hled by A3, questioning their conviction under Section 3O2 r l.w 34 IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.10 of 2015, dated 28.07 .2017 passed by the principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

¶43

Since both the appeals are arising out of same judgment of trial qr{ Court, both tf e appeals are disposed off by way of this Common Judgr-nent.

¶44

Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2 in Criminal Appeal No.1362 of 2017, Sri K.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A3 in Criminal Appeal No.162 1 of 2Ot7.

¶45

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1, who is the defacto complainant went to the police station on 27.O2.2OL4 at 9.O0 p.m. In the said complaint, he narrated that he came to know that his brother-in-law namely Mohd. Bikku Sab (deceased) was injured by some persons. Immediately, P.W. 1 went to the spot and found that the deceased was

,*'

}...]!

z

I I t

bleeding. Whr:rL^{qtr':stioned by P.W. 1, the deceaseditrform':dthatA1, A2} and 43 beat hirr sutce he^{was objecting to take away the nt,:embranches.} Since the decr:asecl^{questioned them, A1 beat him wi-h stick on his head} arrd .A2 and A.l abrrsed in fi1thy^{languageand also assaultecl with hands.}

¶51

The de,:e ast:tl was taken to the^{hospital.Wh il e undergoing} treatment, he died :n 07.O3.2014^{at Gandhi Hospital.Thc body was sent} for postmorter ex.a.mination.^{P.W.12conductedaulopsy and following} injuries were foun,1 on the body^{of the deceased:}

¶52

r:'r;l

¶53

"1,. "C" stap,:1 surgical craniotomy wound^pre{ient o: the^{skull on} right with sutt rres On cut section^{evidence of riglrt ten Lporal parietal} cranrotomy n rted with evidence of^{subdural he::latomaand} subarachnoid t erLorrhage noted on right^{cerebral he:nispheres.}

¶54

2 "C" shaperl surgical craniotomy wound^{pres3nt orr the scalpon} left side with^s utures. On cut section^{evidence left pariet.alcraniotomy.} noted with t vid t:nce of subdural hematoma^{anql subarachnoid} hemorrhage noled.n left cerebral^hemisphere.

¶55

Scalp conttrsion present diffursely all^over th:^sczr\r.

¶56

Contus ior. on left side of the neck 10 x^1O cr.^note'd

¶57

About i0i) mg of blood clot^present in the^{bar;e of tre brain."}

¶58

P.W.12 concl'rded that the death was on accortnt of^{'complications} of head injury"

¶59

The polic,: filrrd charge sheet against three appellants^{for the offence} under Section .i02 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶60

3

¶61

'!t {r*r

¶62

The evidence against the appellants is that of p.W.3 and p.W.S. P.w- 1 filed complaint a,d he stated that he came to know about the dece.dfsed bding beaten by some persons. However, the name of p.W.S was not mentioned in the complaint. p.w.5 was cited as an eye witness to the incident. P.w.5 stated that he was working uncler the deceased and on the, date of the incident, he saw the appellants beating from a distance.

¶63

B. In the cross-examination, p.w.5 admitted that the scene of offence was at a distance of 2 kms from where he was standing. The version given by P.w.5 cannot be believed firstly for the reason of his name not J-9\ ' ? being mentioneu in the complaint that he had witnessecl the incident and secondly, it is not possible for a person to view what is happening at a distance of 2 kms. The incident happened around 7.O0 p.m, which would be dark in any season.

¶64

According to the evidence of P.W. 1, he went to the scene and found the deceased lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. The deceased informed him that it was the appellants 1 to 3 who assaulted him and abused him. Specifically, it was narrated that Al was the person who beat the deceased with sticks, while ,A.2 and A3 assaulted the deceased with fists.

F

r.rl,,

4

1 O. The inc,rr^Lsis.t ency in^{the case of the prose :tttion isthat the} statement of t re^{rleceased was not recordedby -he pr:1ice officials.} Though the de,;eased was undergoing^{treatment for a period of nearly} eight days in bt tur::n 27.O2.2OI4^{and 07.03 2O14, h'ru'ever,no attempts} werc made by a n1' of the^{police ofhcials of the concer:red} 1l< '1ice^stationto record his staiemert. No reasons^{are also given as to} "rrhy^{no attemptwas} made to record his statement.

¶69

r.,l'

¶70

1 1 . The deatl^rva s after a^{period of eight days of the :rllegedassault'} The opinion c f l-he Doctor is that the^{death vlas ol-r accountof} complications of the head injury. It^{was not statec specificaily by the} treating Doctot tha t the death^was a direct^{consequcllccr} 'lf^{thc injuries} that were re< eived on the said day.^{What was nreant bythe} 'Complications' wtr; not clearly stated by the^{Doctot ncir ,:licited by the} prosecution du:inq the course of trial. The 'Complications'^{is vague word} to be stated.^{'C,rmplication'} could^{be due to vilrlous factors. The} prosecution or ght to have proved conclusively thzLt^t1're death^{was a} direct consequ( nc.' of the injuries.

¶71

Keeping i r vi,:r,r, that the said infirmities, it^{cannotb,:r said that the} death which c cctrrred eight days after the incident,^{citn be directly} attributed to tire aileged assault. Accordingly, conviction under^Section 3O2 rlw 34 of iPtl is set aside against the appellants. Llowever, A1 is

¶72

5

¶73

I

¶74

convicted under section 3o4-I of Ipc and sentenced to trndergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 42 and A3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under section 326 IPC.

¶75

Since the appellants/A1 to A3 were released on bail, the concerned court is directed to cause appearance ofthe appellants and send them to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.p.C.

¶76