Partly allowed¶71

Talpunoori Subbaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt and 2 Otrs., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC7 Jan 2025CRLA/707/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal partly allowed; murder conviction under Section 302 IPC reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC on ground of grave and sudden provocation (Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC); appellants released as sentence already served; reliance on Nanavati and Ninnala Devi precedents.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellants A1 and A2 convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC; appellant A1 to be released forthwith as sentence already undergone. ¶71

Talpunoori Subbaiah, Mahabubnagar Dt and 2… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2025)

[³⁴¹⁹ I

l l I I

I I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{ANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:7O7^{OF 2017}

¶9

Criminal Appeal filed^{under Section 37aQ)^of} 9,.P.9'^{againstthe Judgrrent} aated il .Oei .iOl O^{'passeO in S.C.No. 596 of 201 3 on {he file of the Court of thelX} Additional District^{hnd Sessions Judgeat Wanaparthy.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

" Talounoori Subbaiah,^{S/o.Mallaiah'Age: 39 years' Occ: Agriculture,R/o} trrtuktiaigunOam Village,^{Kollapur Mandal,Mahabubnagar District'}

¶12

Gonthuparla Balapeeru,^{S/o Pentaiah,} -Age:.29^{years,Occ:.Agriculture,Rl/o} - Gudem'Village, V6epangandla Vandal, Mahabub l'lagar Distrbt

¶13

- Gonthuparla Pentaiah,^{S/o Nagaiah,Age: 64 years'} Qcc: .Agriculture,^Rl'/o e ,Oern'Vittage,^{VeepahgandlaMandal,Mahabub Nagar District'}

¶14

...AppeHanUA-1^{to A3}

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by PublicProsecutor,HtThCourt of Hyderabad,} Hyderabad.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^{ICRLAMP. NO:1 447 0F 20171}

¶19

Petition under section^{5 of LimitationAct, praying ttrat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,tte High Court maybe} p[as.a to condone the delay^{of 215 days in filingthe present Criminal Appeal} li J p".. suih-other^{orderor orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and} proper in the circumstances of the^case.

¶20

l.A. NO: 2OF 2017{CRLAMP.^{NO: 148 oE 20't7l}

¶21

Petition under Sec{ion^{389(1) of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit fibd^{in support of the petition,the HighCourt maybe} pleased to suspend the operation^{of ttre judgnrentdated 27.9.m16 passedin}

¶22

¶23

I ij I rl

¶24

s'c'No 596 0f 2r113 0n the fire of the rX Additionar District and sessions Judge at Wanaparthy by entarging tne petition"er o;;;i."^{-' "}

¶25

IA NO: 20F 202A

¶26

Petition under Section _4g2 of Cr I C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited,.in.support of the;;iii;"", the High Court mav be (v pteased to receive the medicat dil;; ;.;;i"ils'i; th. petitioner herein in the above LA.No 1t2c2o Cd A.N".toi-or'ioii.rlqrrr'r'v

¶27

lA NO: 2 oF 2021

¶28

Petition under Sectio-n -48-2^{of Crl C , praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit fired in support of the'p"tition, the High court may be pleased to receive ther medical ,"p.i,t.tiin"'r"ii.r) showinst'eaamission'i,iir,"p"trii"lr";;'ffi^,r'Jl;:ffi :ffi lX#,Ig:lfJ:ff ::: additionat materiar papers in the t.A.No. I ii [O\ n Crt.A.7O7/2017, in the rnterest of justice.

¶29

lA NO:2 oF 2022

¶30

Petition under section.3gg(1) of. cr.p.c., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affid avit filed in support of the ' oetiii, pre_ased, t" iGi;., il ""^09t1,,""*! r,";; H f,:it?'.,:ti"Xl:ln..i:".$il":: rmposed in s.c.No 596 of 2013 d"t"iiitsiiol6"on tn. fire of the rX Additionar sessions Judge warnapa.t'y, penoingd;;;;;ft main crrA z1z/2017.

¶31

Counsel for Appellanls : Mr. Raja Gopattavan Tayi

¶32

Counset for the Respondent : Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional^public prosecutor

¶33

The Court detiverecl the following: JUOGMENT

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE K.SURENDER AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶35

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.7O7 OF 2Ol7

¶36

JITDGMENT i (per Hon'bte Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶37

This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.09.2016 in S.C.No.596 of 2Ot3 on the fiIe of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, convicting the appellants/Al to A4 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC) and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,0OO/- each and in default of paJrment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

¶38

Heard Mr. Raja Gopallavan Tayi,'learned counsel for the appellants/Al to A3, arrd Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶39

The i:ase of the prosecution is that A1 is the husband, A2 is brother-in-law, A3 is father-in-law and,A4 is the wife of ,{.1 respectively. The appellants/Al to A4 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for

¶40

JAK, J Crt.A^{No.707 of20l7}

¶41

¶42

beating th,: deceased to deatl:r on account of illicit^{relation in} between A'4 (wife of A1) and the^deceased. The^complaintwas filed on 01.09.2013 by PW. 1,^who is the wife of^{the deceased.} In the cornplaint lodged at 8:OO A.M., she stated^{that on} previous day at around 1O:30 P.M., A4 called the deceased to her house saying that she was alone. PW. 1 further^stated that they had illega1 relationship in between them.^The deceased tvent to the house when the appellant/Al,^{who is} husband c,f 44, was not present. When the deceased^{ald A4} were togethet, the appellants/Al to A3 entered^{into the} house and assaulted the deceased by brirg him to^{a pole in} the house and thereafter, he was thrown^{on the road. PWs.4} to 6 are the 'rillagers, who witnessed the incident of^beating the deceased by A1 to 44. On hearing the^hues and^{cries of} the deceased, the PWs.4 to 6 knocked the^door of^{the house} of Al and thereafter the appellants^{dragged the deceasedand} threw him ou.t of the house. On^account of^{severeinjuries,} the deceased died on the spot.

¶43

The Inspector - PW. 17 took up^{investigation} of the case, went to the scene of offence,^photographed the scene, dead body and the statements of PWs.1^to 9 and others were recorded at the scene. The inquest^proceedings were also

¶44

JAK, J

¶45

Crl.A.l{o.707 of20l7

¶46

¶47

conducted at the scene and theredter the body was sent for the post mortem examinafion to the Civil Hospital, Kollapur. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Sandeep Kumar, who was not examined, however, in his place, pW. 16 _ Dr. M.A. Thaher was examined. pW. 16 marked Ex.p26 which is the post mortem examination of the deceased. According to the opinion given by the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, i.e., Dr. Sandeep Kumar, the deceased died due to multiple organ damage (rapture) leading to profuse internal bleeding and consequent cardiac arrest.

¶48

The appellants were arrested on 04.O9.2013. They were interrogated and their confession statements were recorded. At the instalce of Al, a cart peg and a nylon rope were recovered from the house of the appellants and bamboo stick was also recovered at the instance of .A4. Having completed the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants/Al to A4. According to the investigating offrcer, the investigation revealed that the deceased was indiscriminately beaten by Bring hirn to a pole in the house oi the appellants since A4 had illicit intimacy with the deceased. After killing the deceased, the dead body was thrown in front of t]le house.

¶49

JAK' J Crt.A^Noi07oJ20l7

¶50

¶51

,lt

¶52

Learned^{SessionsJudge framed charge for the offence} under^{Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC' Reliancewas} mainly^{placed on ttre evidence of PWs'4 to 6' who were the} eye witnesses^{to the incident and also their nameswere} mentioned^{in the First Information Report'whichwas filed} by PW.1

¶53

karned^{counsel appearingfor the appellants/A1 and} A2 would^{submitthat the case was fabricatedinsofar as the} appellants^{are concerned'The version given by PWs'4 to 6} cannot^{be l:elieved since they are not neighboursof the house} of the^{appeltantsas admitted by them and also as admitted} by the^{investigatingofficer' No reason has been given as to} why the^{irnmediate neighbours were not examinedand if at} all the^{ir:icidentwastakenPlace as sPokenbY the eYe} PWs.4^{to 6, the Probablewitnesses are the} witnesses neighbours,^{but not PWs'4to 6'}

¶54

counsel^{for theaPPellants} 8. AlternativelY,^learned a case^{of grave and sudden} would^{stLbmit that this is} provocati'on.^{It falls within Exception1 to Section300 IPC} and though^{the death was homicidal ' it does not amountto} murder.^{Learned counselrelied on the judgment of the}

¶55

JAK, J Ctl.A.No.7q7 of 2017

¶56

¶57

Honble Supreme in K-M. No:na;ao;ti u. State of Mahsrq.strrrr. [,earned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ninnala Deai o. State of Himqch.o.l Pradeshz. In the said judgment, the Hon,ble Supreme Court was dealing witle a case wherein the deaths were caused by the accused while being deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden provocation. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and the appellalt was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part -I IPC.

¶58

In the present case, though the immediate neighbours of the house of the appellants were not exarnined, that itsetf cannot form the basis to disbelieve the evidence of pWs.4 to 6. The witnesses - PWs.4 to 6 have stated about the appellants beating the deceased in the house of the appellants. However, all the witnesses have stated that there q,7ss illigif relationship in between A,4 and the deceased.

¶59

In-the complaint lodged by PW. 1, it was specilically mentioned that in the absence of A1, Al's wife, who is A4, called the deceased and the deceased went' to the house of

¶60

I 1962 aIR sc 6os

¶61

2 2023 Livelaw (SC) 58S

¶62

¶63

JAK J ('rl.A.No.707 of 2017

¶64

the appellants at 1O:30 P.M.^on 31.08.2013'^Thereafter, A1 found A4 in the company of the deceased in^{the house'} Then A1 along with A2 arrd A3 assaulted the^deceasedand caused injuries to the deceased in the house^resulting in death.

¶65

The^.culpable homicide is not a murder under^Exception I to Section 3OO IPC, when the offender,^{whilst deprivedof} the porver of self-control by^grave and sudden^provocation, causes the death of the person.^{Whether the provocation was} grave and sudden enough to commit an offence^amounting to murrler or not, would be a^question of fact^{to be decided} on the basis of the circumstances or^{facts elicited ina} particu lar case.

¶66

k: th.e present case, admittedly,^{A1 was not presentin} the hotrse, even according to PW.^{1, when the deceased went} to the hou.se of the appellants,^{though he was called by A4.} The deceased was beaten by a^{stick which} is^normally availab.te in any house in a village.^{It is not a case that arry} preparation was made earlier for causing hr:rt to the deceased. The^possibility of the^husband -^{A1 loosing his} senses and control on account of^{seeing ,{4} and the deceased

¶67

J&J " ' !'": Crl.A-No.707 of20I7

¶68

¶69

together in his house is enough^{provocationresultingin A1} and other appellants/A2 a11d A3,^{who are the in-lawsof A1} beating the deceased.

¶70

In the facts^{of the presentcase, we deem it appropriate} that the conviction under^{Section 302 IPC has to be set aside} while convicting the appe[ants/A^{L and A2 under Section 304} Part -I IPC.

¶71

Accordingly, the^{CrirninalAppeal is partlyallowed'} Since the sentence of^{imprisonmentimposed underSection} 3O4 Part I IPC is eight^{years, which is already undergoneby} the appellants, tJre^{appellant/Alshall be releasedforthwith,} if he is not required in^{any other case.}

¶72

Miscellaleous Petitions,^{if any, pending in this Criminal}

¶73

Appeal shall stand^cancelled.

¶74

Sd/- K.^SRIN|VASARAO JOINT EGISTRAR ,ffRUE^COPY'I

¶75

S TION OFFICER

¶76

¶77

To, 1 The lX Additional^{District and Sesslons Judge atWanaparthy'} A '' 'iir"ttro'run"Jii. X*;',JIitll"Ulgllf,";ll*l'r",'S3";, [witn 'ecorat) "^tll3l#i;,"r, "^{R R Distrct (Bv speed}

¶78