Partly allowed¶¶41

Arigala Srinu , Yarra Srinu v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jan 2025CRLA/2169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arigala Srinu @ Yarra Srinu v. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No.2169 of 2018, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 24.01.2025 by K. Surender J: conviction under Section 304-II IPC affirmed (plea of alibi unproved; finger impression of appellant on M.O.1 steel rod; P.W.2 eyewitness account), sentence reduced to two years' imprisonment, criminal appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence of imprisonment reduced to two years; the appellant, who is on bail, is to be caused to appear before the trial Court and sent to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. ¶¶41

Arigala Srinu , Yarra Srinu Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-II IPC for causing the death of the deceased called for interference in this appeal. +2 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

The finger print expert found the appellant's finger impression on M.O.1, the steel rod used to assault the deceased on her head resulting in her death, and according to the evidence of P.W.2 there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased resulting in the appellant assaulting the deceased on the head.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

Once the plea of alibi is taken it is for the appellant to prove his presence in Dornakal; since no evidence was placed by the appellant to prove his presence in Dornakal, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶¶39

Key takeaways

Keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2015 and the appellant has to take care of his wife, two children and his mother, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two years.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction under Section 304-II IPC recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in S.C.No.363 of 2015 (judgment dated 05.07.2018). The appellant had assaulted the deceased with a steel rod (M.O.1) on her head, causing death; the chance print lifted from M.O.1 matched the appellant (P.W.11, finger print expert), and P.W.2 deposed to a fight between the appellant and the deceased culminating in the assault. The appellant's plea of alibi (that he was in Dornakal and never visited the deceased's house) failed as no evidence was placed to prove his presence in Dornakal. Conviction upheld; however, considering that the incident was of the year 2015 and that the appellant has to care for his wife, two children and mother, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to two years. Appeal partly allowed; the appellant, who is on bail, to be produced before the trial Court and sent to prison to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

¶1

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 31 .07.2018 in I.A.No.¹ of^2O1B in Crl.A.^{No.2169of 2018.}

¶2

[^32s1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2169 OF 2018

¶8

Appeal under Section 374⁽²⁾ of Cr.P.C. against^{the Judgment dated05-} 07-2018 in Sessions Case No.363 of^{2015 on the file of the Courtof the learned} Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Arigala Srinu @ Yarra Srinu, S/o.^{late Kataiah,Agqd 39.ye.als-,.Madiga,iriy?t9} Railway Kalas'r, R/o Dornakal Railway Quarters,^{Dornakal,WarangalDistrict'} Telangana State 506 381.

¶11

...AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana. Represented^{by PublicProseculor, H igtt Court at} Hyderabad for the State of telangana^{airdthe Stateof Andhra Pradesh through} Khammam I Town P.S.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. T^{P Acharya}

¶16

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

¶17

The Court delivered the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2l59 OF 2018

¶20

JUDGMENT:

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.07.2018 in S.C.No.363 of 2015, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Khammam. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶23

P.W.l is the complainant in the case. The complaint was filed b,y P.W. 1 at 1 p.m. on 28.03.2015 in Khammam^p.S., alleging that the appellant informed her that he had injured the deceased. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the scene/house where deceased was staying and found ttrat the deceased was lying dead in the middle room. P.W.2 is the eye-witness to the incident. According to him, on the previous day of the incident, the appellant injured the deceased with steel rod/M.O.l on her head resulting in injuries. The next day, P.W.2 found the deceased dead in her house. The Police went to the scene and shifted body to the hospital. After inquest, the body was sent for autopsy,

¶24

¶25

On examination, P.W.9/Autopsy Doctor found the following

¶26

rnJunes: -

¶27

i. Contusion of the size 3 x 1 cms over tlee right shoulder.

¶28

. ii. Contusion of the size 4 x 1 cms over the left chest.

¶29

in. Contusion of the size 7 x 1 cms and 8 x 1 cms over the left waist.

¶30

and also found internal injury of fracture of frrst cervical vertebra. P.W.9 opined that all the above injuries "t" .oti mortem in nature and such injuries are^possible by a blunt object."

¶31

The Potice at the scene of offence seized M.O.l/steel^{rod and} sent it to finger print expert. Chance print which was found^on M.O. 1 was compared with the hnger print of the^appellant. According to P.W. 11, who is the finger^print expert,^chance Print lifted from the scene on M.O. I was that of the appellant.

¶32

karned Sessions Judge, on the basis of examination^of evidence found that it was the appellant who^{had injured the} deceased which resulted in her death.

¶33

karned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that according to P.W.2, the appellant went inside,^{bolted the door} and allegedly assaulted the deceased. In the said circumstances,

¶34

¶35

the question of P.W.2 witnessing the assault by the appe[ant does not arise. Alternatively, counsel prays for reduction of sentence.

¶36

P.W.9 stated that injuries 1 to 3 were simple in nature and others injuries were grievous. The cause of death was fracture to the skull.

¶37

Finger print expert found finger impression on M.O. 1 which was used to assault the deceased on her head and consequenfly resulted in death. From the facts, according to the evidence of P.W.2, there was a fight in between the appellant and the deceased resulting in appellant assaulting the deceased on the head-

¶38

¶39

The specific defense of the appellant is that he was in Dornakal and he never visited the house of the deceased. Once the plea of alibi is taken by the appellant, it is for him to prove that he was present in Dornakal. However, no evidence was placed by the appellant to prove his presence in Dornakal. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2OI5, and the appellant has to take care of his wife, two children and his mother, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two years.

¶40

¶41