Allowed¶44

Thripati Manoj , Manu v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025CRLA/634/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acquittal on doubtful identification: Telangana High Court (K. Surender J.) allowed Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2012 on 22-01-2025, setting aside the conviction of Accused No.2 under Section 304-II IPC (S.C.No.31 of 2012, Sessions Judge, Nizamabad Division). Stranger accused not named in the complaint, no test identification parade, witnesses PWs.1 to 3 identified him for the first time after over a year amid several strangers; benefit of doubt extended; bail bonds discharged. Keywords: doubtful identity; test identification parade; benefit of doubt; Section 304-II IPC; Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction imposed on the appellant/accused No.2 by judgment dated 19.06.2012 in S.C.No.31 of 2012 set aside; since the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

Thripati Manoj , Manu Vs the State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction imposed on the appellant/accused No.2 by judgment dated 19.06.2012 in S.C.No.31 of 2012 set aside; since the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the evidence attributing the fatal assault to the appellant/accused No.2 is reliable, given that he was admittedly a stranger to PWs.1 to 3, was not specified as any particular assailant in the complaint of PW.1, was identified for the first time after more than one year, and no test identification parade was conducted. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

The identification of the appellant/accused No.2 is doubtful: he was admittedly a stranger to all the witnesses, was not specified in the complaint of PW.1 as any particular person who assaulted the deceased, and the witnesses attributed overt-acts to him for the first time in Court after more than one year, where several strangers apart from the appellant were present; there being no test identification parade, the evidence of the witnesses becomes doubtful.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

In the present facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant/accused No.2, entitling him to setting aside of the conviction imposed under Section 304-II IPC.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (K. Surender J.), Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2012, decided 22-01-2025 — Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by Accused No.2 against his conviction under Section 304-II IPC by judgment dated 19.06.2012 in S.C.No.31 of 2012 (Sessions Judge, Nizamabad Division), arising from an assault at a tea stall following a quarrel over a woman performing a funeral, in which the deceased was taken to hospital and declared dead. Held: the appellant was admittedly a stranger to eye-witnesses PWs.1 to 3; the written complaint Ex.P1 of PW.1 did not state regarding any particular person or the appellant as the assailant; the witnesses were examined nearly one year and four months after the incident and attributed overt-acts to the appellant for the first time in Court, where several strangers apart from the appellant were present; and no test identification parade was conducted. The identification of the appellant thus being doubtful, the evidence of the witnesses becomes doubtful, and benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant/accused No.2. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; bail bonds stand discharged; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed.

¶1

- -r

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Appellant / Accused No 2 was directed to be released on^{bail by} the Order of the High Court dated 09-07 -2012 madeⁱⁿ Crl.A.ttil.P.No.1332 of 2012 in Crl.A.No.634 ol 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 634 OF 2012

¶8

Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated^'19-0ei- 2012 made in S.C.No.31 ol 2012 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Thripati Mano.i @ Manu, S/o. Matha Prasad, Aged 21^years. Occ^{Tlffin Centre} Master, R/o Var-i Chowrastha, Sainagar, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District

¶11

...Appellant / Accused No 2

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶14

...Respondent / Complainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant

¶16

Sri D Bhaskar Reddy

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent

¶18

Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Court delivered the following Judgment^:

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.634 of 2Ol2

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

The present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.2 aggrieved by the conviction in judgment dated 19.06.2012 tn S.C. No.31 of 2O72 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad, for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code (for short 1.P.C.').

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. Perused the record.

¶27

Initially, accused Nos.l to 6 were charge-sheeted under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The learned trial Judge found accused No. I guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and accused No.2/appellant herein was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-ll of I.P.C. Accused Nos.3 to 6 were acquitted by the trial Court since there was no identification.

¶28

¶29

The facts of the case in brief are that PWs.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident which happened on 09.01.2011 at about 1.00 p.m. According to PW. 1, who lodged Telugu written complaint Ex.P1, on 08.01.201 t his father-in-law died. Since his father-in-law was not having any sons, sisterin-law of PW.l namely Bhagzasree, walted to perform the funeral. Accused No. 1 and one Krishna, who is the younger brother of the deceased, raised an objection to the funeral being performed by a woman. Accused No.1 abused the wife of PW.1 i.e., PW.3 and also the sister of PW.3. There was a quarrel in between them. Meanwhile elders interfered and pacified the matter. On the same day at around 1.30 p.m., while PW. 1, deceased, along with others were at the tea stal1, accused Nos. 1 to 6 went there and attacked them. According to PWs.1 to 3, accused No.2 beat the deceased with hands all over his body and deceased fell on the ground. PW.2 stated that appellant slapped on the cheek of the deceased. PW.3 stated similar to what PWs.1 and 2 stated regarding accused No.2.

¶30

¶31

In the complaint filed by PW.1, he stated that accused No. 1 and some of his friends went to tea sta_ll and assaulted the deceased. The deceased was hit indiscriminately in stomach and all other parts of the body. On account of beating by accused No. 1 and several others, the deceased fell down. The deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared as dead.

¶32

Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Jaya Kottur (not examined), who found the following injuries:

¶33

Nasal bleeding from right and left nostrils

¶34

lntra cerebral bleeding

¶35

Bleeding and clots present right temporal region after

¶36

lifting the scalp and

¶37

Fracture of right temporal parietal bone.

¶38

Accordrng to Dr.Jaya Kottur, the cause of death of the deceased was due to severe head injury. PW. 11, deposed on behalf of Dr.Jaya Kottur. He stated that as per the pME report, injuries were not found on abdomen and on the sides of ribs.

¶39

¶40

Admittedly, the appellant/accused No.2 was stranger^to all the witnesses. In the complaint filed by PW.l,-it was^not stated regarding any particular person or the appellant,^as the person who assaulted the deceased.^{The incident} happened on 08.01.2011 and PWs.1 to 3^{were examinedon} Ol.OS.20l2 i.e. nearly after one^year and four^{monthsfrom the} date of incident. The only reason for^{convictingthe} appellant/accused No.2 is because witnesses PWs.1 to³ stated that it was appellant/accused No.2^{who hitthe} deceased^'all over the body. As already stated, it^{was not} specilied in the complaint that one^{person amongstother} persons beat the deceased. But it was specilically stated that all of them had assaulted the deceased. The^{specifrc details of} the appellant/accused No.2 were not stated in the^complaint, nor mentioned at the earliest point of time that^{one amongst} the group had assaulted the deceased. There was^{no test} identilication parade conducted. The identity^of the^appetlant is doubtful since it was for the first time after^more than^one year. The witnesses attributed overt-acts to^the appellant/accused No.2 only. The said identihcation by^the witnesses after one year for the first time in the Court^after

¶41

¶42

the incident happened, where there were several strangers apart from the appellant, evidence by the witnesses become doubtful. In fact the witnesses admitted that they have not specifically stated against the appellant/accused No.2 at the earliest point of time.

¶43

9 . In the present facts and circumstances of the case, benelit of doubt is extended to the appellant/accused No.2.

¶44

The Criminal Appeal 1S allowed, setting aside the conviction- imposed against the appellant/accused No.2 vide judgment dated 19.06.2012 passed in S.C.No.31 of 2012 by the trial Court. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶45

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

Sd/- K. I;RINIVASA RAO /\ I\T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' --....-_ E:TION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

To,

¶49