Dismissed

Satvinder Singh , Satvinder, Sr.Nagar, Hyd., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC23 Jan 2025CRLA/670/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant convicted of murdering two fast-food centre occupants by stabbing them with a kirpan appealed against his Section 302 IPC conviction, citing dying declaration inconsistencies and seeking reduction to culpable homicide. The High Court found no grave provocation or sudden fight and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None granted; appellant on bail to be produced and sent to prison to serve remaining sentence.

Satvinder Singh , Satvinder, Sr.Nagar, Hyd… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Bail slip: The petitioner accused was directed to be rereased on bair bv the order of the Hish court dared 1s-11-2022 in r.e.No. i.t'z-riir-ii cii,qlfi.;. i?d'lr 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE TWENry THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER And

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:67O OF 2O17

¶9

Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 of Cr.p.C. against the Judgment in s.c.No.498 ot 2014 dated 07-06-2017 on the file of th-e court of tre a-riaitionar Metropolitan sessions Judge for Trial of communal offence cases cum vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Satvinder Singh_@ Satvinder, S/o. Batdev Singh, Contractor, R/o. H.No.7_140212 Near Hanuman Temple, SR.Nagar, Hyderabad.^" .. AppellanU AccuseJ-AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by the public prosecutor, High Court Buildinqs. HyoeraDao. ...RESPONDENT^-

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. p. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent THE ADDITIONAL pUBLtC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court delivered the following Judgment :

¶16

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER} and HON'BI,D^{SRT JUSTICEANIL IruMAR JUKANTI}

¶17

CRIMINAL^{APPEAL No'67O OF 2OL7}

¶18

JUDGMENT^{t (per 1cn'bleSri Justice K'surender)}

¶19

The appeliar-r'^{was convictedfor the offenceunderSection 302} IPC for^{inflicting knife injuries with Kirpan on two deceased persons} who are Dl^{(Ranrith saigal), and D2 (Subash)' owner and worker} respectively^{in tl re Fast Food center namely R'R'R'ChineeseCorner} and sentenced^{to lil.e imprisonmentvide judgment in S C'No'498 of} 2OL4 dated^{07 Ct6'2O17} passed by the^{AdditionalMetropolitan} of Communal^{Offence Casr:s cum VII} Sessions^{Judge [or trial} Additional^{MetrocrlitanSessionsJudge' Hyderabad'Aggrieved by the} same, Present^{aPPt:al is filed'}

¶20

Briefly, th':^{lacts of the case a-re that the appellantwasa} customer^{at R R Fl Chrneese Corner,fast food centerrun lly P'W' 1 and} Dl. The appeltanl^{used to visit the Fast Food center once a week'} According^{to P.\I . I} ,^{six months prior to the incident'[he appellant} picked up^{quarre I with D 1 on the ground that some junk foodwas} supplied^{which:<:sulted in the appellantbecomingsick' 'Ihe appellant} used to^{threale r DI frequently' On 07 'Ol'2O14 at about 11'00 a'm'} when P.W.^{Iw 3r1t topurchase vegetablesfrom the shop of one} Dharma,^{the I p'pellantfelt while driving his motor cycle atthe} vegetable^{shop. 1'hc appellant started beating P'W' 1 and both decided}

¶21

¶22

¶23

to go to the police station to res{e the quarrel. Meanwhile, D2, p.W.2 and P.W.6 went there and enquired with p.W.l. Meanwhile, Dl also went there and the appelrant took out Kirpan and stabbed on the reft side of the abdomen of Dl. Dl fell down and immediately the appellant rushed towards p.w. r when D2 intervened and tried to rescue P.W. 1, appellant also injured D2 on his left thigh. Appellant . ran away after inflicting Dl and D2 with bleeding injuries. D I and D2 were taken to GSN Hospital, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. On the advise of the Doctors at cSN Hospital, D I and D2 were shifted to prime Hospital, Ameerpet. Dl was declared as brought dead at prime Hospital and D2 was initiany treated at Frime Hospital and thereafter, shifted to Sigma Hospital and from there to Gandhi Hospitar where he died on 24.O1.2014.

¶24

P.W. I went to the police station and lodged English written complaint Ex.Pl at 1.30 p.m on the same day. The inspector of P.S.Kanchan Bagh/P.W. 18 received the said complaint and recorded, statement of P.W. 1. He then visited prime Hospital and recorded statement of D2. The dead body of DI was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for autopsy. P.W. 18 went to the scene of offence which was opposite to R.R.Food Center and prepared rough sketch of scene .of offence palchanama. At the scene, MOs.4 and 5, chappals were seized. The

I I I I I I ;

statements^{of P'Wr;2 to 8'P.W.14 and others wererecorded by} P.w.18.

¶29

The appellanl^{was arrestedon the same day at 6'30 p'm'He} was interrogated^{in the presenceof P'W'9 and another' At the instance} of the^{appell.r11,M{)1 Kirpanwas recoveredfrom his possession'}

¶30

Requisition^{u'a's given to P'W'17 / Magistratefor recording dying} declaration^{of D2P'W' 17 recordedthe statementat 8'30 p'm on} ll.Ol.2014-^{In the said statement' D2 narrated the incident and also} the manner^{in wlrich one Sardarji' who was later identifiOdas the} appellant^{had stahbedboth Dl and D2'}

¶31

The^{policefilect charge sheetagainstthe appellant for the offence} under^{Section 302 PC}

¶32

7 . l,earned^{Se sr;tons Judge placed reliance on the evidence of} P.W. 1,^{the comp lirrnt and also the medical evidence to frnd the} appellant^{guilty o' :he offence of murder}

¶33

karned^{cottttselfor the appellant argued that the incidenthad} taken^{place in a spr'rr of momentand there was no preplan to cause} injurie s to^{D 1 e'r'd D2 and also there was no premeditationwith} regard to^{clashLetweenP W Iand the appellant'In the incident'} P.W. t had^{not rr ceivedany injury and he was not referred to hospital}

¶34

¶35

for treatment. There is any amount of doubt with regard to the genesis of the incident and also presence of p.W. 1 at that time.

¶36

He further submits that as per the evidence of p.Ws. t,2 and,6, immediately after the incident, three of them shifted. both the injured to GSN Hospital, S.R.Nagar and on the adrrice of the Doctors, they shifted D I and D2 to Prime Hospitals. As per the evidence of the Doctor/P.W.1l at GSN Hospital, he gave first aid to both injured and found one stab injury on the abdomen of Dl and also found one stab injury on the left thigh of D2. Immediately, treatment was started and the concerned police was also informed since there were no attendants attending on both the patients. The doctor called the police to shift the patients to Prime Hospital. As per the evidence of p.W. I 1, none of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 were present at the hospital and they did not shift the injured to Prime Hospital, which shows that p.Ws.l, 2 and 6 were not the eye witnesses to the incident and they have not shifted the inj ured either to GSN Hospital or to Prime Hospital. The evidence of p.W. 11,falsifies the evidence of P,Ws. l, 2 and 6 in admitting the patients in GSN Hospital and also shifting them from GSN Hospital to prime Hospital. He further submits that as per the oral evidence of p.Ws. l, 2 and 6, the appellant stabbed Dl on the left side of abdomen. As per the evidence of P.W. I 1, the stab injury is on the right side of the stomach of D I.

¶37

¶38

He^{further :;ubmitsthat as per the evidence ofP'W' 1' the} incident took^{plac': in front of the vegetable shop of one Dharmabut} as seen from^{the sketch(Ex P20)' the incident took place on the main} road and^{particulttrly, the fast-food center of P'W' 1 was not shown in} the sketch.^{Theretore,the scene of offencediffersfrom the sketch and} the evidence^{of P.\V' 1'}

¶39

He further^{;ubmits that as per the evidenceof P'W'S' who is} uncle of the^{deceased,when he went to police stationat about 2'30} p.m, he saw^{the appellant in the lockup and he cameto know that the} appellant^{was i trrested by the police As per theevidenceof} P.W. 18 / Inspector^{of Police,he arrested the appellantat 6'30 p'rn near} Satyam^{Theaterill- Ameerpet and on his confession he seized kirpan} from the^{possessionof the appellant}

¶40

Counsel^{fu rt.her submitsthat D Idied on the sa me day i'e' '} O7.Ol.2Ol4 in^{the nightrvhereas,D2 died on 24'OL'20t4'While} i;. undergoing^{trea1.rlent,D2's dying <leclaration was recorded by the} Dytng on 07 'Ol 2Ol4'^{As per the} Magistrate/P.W.^t'/ Declaration/^{Ex.I'}I 8 of D2, the time of incidentand involvementof} persons differ^{fro m the evidenceof P'Wsl} '^{2 and 6 in the following} manner:

¶41

¶42

i) DI was stabbed by one person (sardarji) arrd D2 was stabbed by a,other person (sardarji) and it is also mentioned that three sardarjis have come to the fast-food center.

¶43

ii) Immediately, the police came and arrested three Sardarjis. The reason given by D2 was business rivalry as both of them were running fast-food center.

¶44

iii) Incident took place at 5.0O p.m on 07.Ol.2OL4, as such, there is any amount of doubt that which sardarji out of three sardarjis caused injuries to Dl and D2.

¶45

iv) The ocular evidence of P.Ws. L,2 and 6 is not corroborated by the Dying Declaration of D2. As per the evidence of eye witnesses, the place of offence differs from the place of offence mentioned in the Dying Declaration of D2.

¶46

v) The manner of incident did not take place as stated by eye witnesses as rt differs lrom the Dying Declaration of D2 and therefore, no credence can be given to the evidence of eye witnesses i.e., p.Ws.1, 2 and,6 since all of them are interested witnesses.

¶47

On the other hand, Iearned Additional Public prosecutor countered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and argued thal the incidenl happened at O7.O7.2O14 and on the very same day, complaint was filed within two hours. The complaint was

¶48

¶49

received by^{the }rlagistrateon the same day' The arrest of the} appellant^{was alsrt at 6'30 p'm on the date of the incident' In' the} statement^{given b1' D2 to the learned Magistrate/PW'17' the incident} was narrated^{clearlrr' Further, the eye witness account of P W' 1' P'W'2} and P.W.6,^{Ex.P1r:omplaint, are consistent and make out the case} against^{the aPPellartt'}

¶50

t4. The injuries^{f<rund on Dl are as follows}

¶51

Stab uto;t'td of size 3 x I cms^{into cauitydeep ouerthe} Aii'iia"^{of the abdomen1o cms later to the umbilicis'} '"yn'"i'Jir; i"i"ri- iput and roush edqe mediat border so'o ni^{of paiallg clotted-blood in the peritoneal} "i",i cauitg.

¶52

ruPture^{oJ'l.hecolon'}

¶53

mgsentry^contusion'"

¶54

According tr^{P.W.15,the cause of death was due to peritonitis} due to stab^injuq'.

¶55

D2^{died whil: undergoing treatment on 24 'Ol 20 14' According to}

¶56

P.w.12,autopsyDoctor,folIowinginjurieswereloundonD2:

¶57

"1. A deep^{penetrating injurg meosuring 17 cms in length and} uidth io^{cms-wtncban cut marsins presentin the} ;;p;;;i;",;t, left^{groinre,?rcn penetrating the.mu'sclesuesscls ond enleredthe} abdominal^{c,TuitA in} 'n"'^{t"ft inguinal rcqionassoci oted tt'tith} celluitis of^{tltt surrounding tissucs'} 2. Vertical^{itu:i-sed- injury measuring22 cms i'n l.enqth and'7 cmsin} iiatn il""n'nt^{on tie late' aspecl of Left thigh} .and^muscledeep i"iiiig tht^{nuscles,uesselsu'ith celluitis of the sunounding} tissues noted.

¶58

¶59

Pene-trating injury uith loss of skin flap ouer scrotal region in an area of 9 x 9 cms and both the testi.s aie exposed. witlt no scrotal skin ouer that, the sunounding trbsues or" bi;r"d..

¶60

.Vertbal injury ouer left calf lO x 4 cm.s euid-ence of fa,sciotomg noted."

¶61

According to the opinion of p.W. 12, the cause of death of D2 was on account of multiple penetrating injuries and its complications.

¶62

The argument of the learned counsel that p.W. 11 stating that there were no attendants when Dl and D2 were shifted to Prime Hospital cannot form basis to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 about them witnessing the incident. There was a stab injury on the right side of the stomach of Dl. However, P.Ws.l, 2 and 6 stated rhat Dl was stabbed on the left side. The said discrepancy is ol no consequence when the injury was received on the abdomen, which is stated by all the.witnesses. The witnesses stating that it was on the left side of ihe abdomeq..-. cannot form basis to find that all the witnesses were planted as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶63

L7 . The scene of offence was on the road. p.Ws.1, 2 and. 6 stated that initially, altercation took place near the vegetable shop of one Dharma and thereafter, p.W. I and the appellant started

I I I t I i i :

i i I I I tI I I

going towards^{poJ.i'::e station and it is at that juncture' tire D2 and} others enquired^{rloout the altercation in betweenP'W 1 and the} appellant.^{Further, D1 also came to the scene'\Alhen itis} specihcally^{mentionedby the witnesses that initial confrontation} of P.W.l^{and th,: appellant took place in front of one vegetable} shop of^{Dharma-, that does not mean and it is not specifically} stated by^{witnr:s;sesthat the incident happened infront of} Dharma^{Vegetableshop'While going to the police s1-ation from} the vegetable^{strcrp, the incident happened in front of Sri Balaji} Graphics^{and Xt:r'ox, which is shown in the sketch'}

¶68

P.W.8,^{who is the uncle of D1 stated' in his examrnationthat} in the afternoon^{around 2.30 p.m, when he went to the police} station, he^{founrl the appellant in the policc station lock up'} However,^{accordi.ng to P'W'18, the appellantwas arrested at 6'3O} p.m. The arrest^{of the appellantis not disputed 'I'he incident';l} happened arou:rrl^{11.3O a'm and P'W'8'who was age'1 around 66} years having^{golle to the police station and finding the appellant} behind bars^{wjll not in any manner have any adverse impacton} the case of^{the prosecution or belie the version o[ tht: eye witness} account. It is^{not the case of the appellantthat hr: was in the} police station vrllen^{the incident happened at l1'00 A M'}

¶69

¶70

lg. The^{version of D2in the dyingdeclarationis that three} Sardarjis^{went to the shop and one of them stabbed Dland} thereafter^{D2. The id'entifrcationof the appellantas the person} who inflicted^{injuries on both D1 and D2 is supported by the} evidence^{of P.Ws'1, 2 and 6 and corroboratedby the statement of} D2 before^{the Magistrate/P'W' 17' D2 'did not deny the} involvement^{of the appellant' It is not disputedthat the appellant} is Sardarji.^{Onty for the reason of stating that one of the Sardarjis} hadassaultedDlandD2inthedyingdeclarationwould'notin any manner^{create doubt about the appellantnot being the} perpetrator.^{D2 did not say that two different sardarjis had} stabbed^{him and D1, as argued by the counsel'}

¶71

karned^{counselfor the appellant relied on the judgmentof} Hon'ble^{SupremeCourtin the case o[ Gurmukh Singh v' State} of Haryanar,^{wherein it was hetd as follows:}

¶72

¶73

n22.Beforewepartwiththecase.tvetl.tlttltllikeLode.arlvobsemethatweare Ltlott or,ittiurt"^{tlrc accttsed cannot be}

¶74

not laying convicted^{down that una"" sn"'"o'"} '''""o'J"'"^{ii)- iii i'} "f ""'glc^{cuses of sinp-le iniury'rhe facts and} lrrr''e to^{helukett utk)cotrsileralionbefore arriving}

¶75

circumstances^of "a'h'cos" shoull^{tte tqtpropriately cottvicted under} at the^{conclusion tn*ii'-'iJ} """ed Section^{302 IPC or under Section304 Purt Il IPC'}

¶76

These^aresonte 'factttrs^{trltit'h ttrc rtrlnired to ha taken irtto consideration} before awardittg^{qppilui''')'" t'''i'i'"uc"t'i tl'" u'-c'tsed' Thesefactors are only}

¶77

'(2009)^{1s suPrem" courtcases 635}

¶78

¶79

illusn'ative^{itt chLtrzcter and notethattstive' Eachcase has lo he seetft'ttntits} 'r'l".iot p"uprrti"'e The relevantfactors are as under:

¶80

tn) Motive or Pr(vtous^enmiry: 'b:, wh;;;;"; tltt i t, ident hai taken place on tly.wur-1f thc^motttt'ttt: 'ii, iin'ir,"r,i,,, k,towledge of the )ccused while^{inJticringtlrchlou or iniurl'} ',7t'iiii',li7i',',i"';;;,;;;;,;;;;'tonto'"ou'tv^{or the victim died afterset'erat} dat,.s; roi The sravin. tlinension^{dndnatureof injury:} 'ii ri"ig, "r,l t c rcral health condirion of the accused: @)^lVhetherthe 'tL;ttty^{wascausedwithoui premeclitation.ina sudden fight;} (h) The norure t;nd size o1^weZponused ior^{inflictingthe injutl'andthe fitrce} u ith which tht^{lttctw wa.s inllicted:} ','ii rin ,riinnt b,tckground and adverse history of lhe accused'. ',!,','i'1r,,|i,i',i," t,l,u,,j,,i,l" ,n catt:e^{lrath'but'the} iriiT'-,,i'"'"a^{death was was not because suf'ficient of shock:in the ordinun'} 'ourse^ol ',ii'i,,^nl,,tt ,t lt:r criminal cases pending against the acu,t'rld. (it) Ltci,le,,t^{ot cr rn'd withinthe} family^{membersor close. r''lalton'r'} 'i)'ii" ,onaur, tnd behaviou'r of ihe occus"d qfte,r^{th,e incidcntll'l'ctlrctrhe} actned hatl^{t(tkt\t the iniured/tircdeceasedto the hospikltnmerliatelvto} ettsure^{lhttt hc/s,ktgets propermedicaltreatment?} 'riri'ir" ,,:, ,,rro,,' if thl fictors which can be taken into cont i'lerutitttr tthila gj,i'uurrrg on apl'r,ipriate^{sentenceto theaccused "}

¶81

21,. He also^{relLe d on the judgmentof Honble Suprerne Court tn} State of U.P^{v. IUadan Mohan and others2' wherein it was held} that non^{examirrzltion of the localit5rwitnesses would createdoubt} on the Prosecutlon^versron'

¶82

22 He also reli,ld^{on the judgmentof Honlole Supreme Court rn} Deepak v.^{State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) 3 seeking} indulgence^{of this Court to alter the convictionunder Section 302} IPC to Section^{ltO4-II IPC'}

¶83

I (19891 3 supreme court c rses 390 r 12018)^{8 Supreme CourtCrses228}

¶84

¶85

I I I i I i i I I

¶86

a.) Exceptions I and 4 of Section 300 of IpC are as follows:

¶87

'(Exception 7.-When culpable homictd.e is not murder.CuLpabte homicid.e i.s not murder if thn offender, whikt d-epriued of thc pouer of self_control bg graue and sudden prouocation, causes the d-eath of thn p"uo, who gaue ihe prouocatbn or couses the death of ang other person bg mi_stake or icid,ent. The aboue exception i.s subject to the foLlowing prou"sos:

¶88

(First) -That the prouocation i.s not sought or uoluntarily prouoked_ bg the offender as an excuse for kilting or d.oing harm to onA person.

¶89

(se9orydly) -That the prouocotion is not giuen by angthing d.one in obed.ienci:e public to the lanu, seruant.or bg o pubLic seruant in the lawful "Tnrrln oS"th. porrn* oy "uii

¶90

(fhndQ) -That the ptouocation is not giuen by angthit-tg done in the lau_tful exerci.se of the right of piuate defence.

¶91

Explanation.-Whether tlte prouocation wos graue ancl sudden enough to preuent the offence from amounting to murd.er is o questiort of fact.

¶92

Exception 4.-culpable homi.cide is not nturcLcr tf it i.s committed, utithout premeditation in a sudden frght in the heat of pctssicsn- u.pon a sud.d-en quarreL and without the offender hauing taken und.uc aduantagc or acted. in o cntel or u nusual manner. "

¶93

The appellant was hotding a knile wirh him. He stabbed Dl and D2 multiple times as evident from the injuries they received. It is not the.case of the appellant that he was attacked by p.Ws.lf 2 and 3 or Dl and D2. Further, the police also did not find any injuries on the body of the appellant when he was arrested. The circumstances do not suggest either grave and sudden provocation or that the stabbing was on the spur of movement after any altercation. In the said circumstances, either exception

¶94

¶95

¶96

1 or exception 1 of^{Section 3OO IPC cannot be relied' on to find} thatthedeathol.DlandD2isnotmurder.Therearenomerits in the appeal^{arLcl accord'ingly,liable to be dismissed'}

¶97

Criminal^{A.prpeal is dismissed. Since the appellan'tis on bail'} the concerned^{(lourt is directed to cause appearanceof the} appellantandsendhimtoprisontoserveouttheremaining period of senterLc:e.

¶98

//TRUE COPY//

¶99

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR i\ JS ECTION OFFICER

¶100

¶101

The Additionerl frrletropolitan Sessions Judge^{for Trial of CommunalOffence} Case cum Vll Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (with} records )

¶102