IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 832 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment and conviction as made in SC No.282/2016, dated 06.06.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. Between: SK.Farooq Basha, S/o. Anwar'Basha, Aged about 34 years, R/o. H.No. 44/69, Roja Dargah Street, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Kurnool If Town Police Station, Kurnool, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following JUDGMENT : 1 KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.832 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AIMARAVATI WEDNESDA Y, THE TWENTY NINETH DA Y OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.832 of 2017 JUDGMENT: {Per Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.282 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is the appellant herein. He was tried and convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo LIFE’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonrhent for a period of three (3) months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 1®* April, 2013, at about 10.30 p.m., at Roja Dargah Street, Kurnool Town and District, the accused stabbed one Syed Hussain (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) with a knife on his chest causing his death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. ♦«. — 2 KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.832of 3. Case of the prosecution, as culled out from the prosecution witnesses, is as follows: The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kurnool town. The deceased was also resident of the same town and they used to reside at Roja Dargah Street, Kurnool Town. The accused is eking out his livelihood by running an auto-rickshaw for hire. The deceased was also eking out his livelihood by running auto TATA ACE. Both of them were residing in the same street adjacent to each other intercepted by one house. While so, on 01.4.2013, at about 10.00 P.M., when the deceased, his wife (P.W.2), his elder son (P.W.1) and younger son were in their house, they heard some noise outside of the house. On that the deceased asked P.W.1 tq go out and see what has happened. P.W.1 went out and saw their motorcycle fell down with damage to the indicator lamp. At the same time, P.W.1 found the auto of the accused near the motorcycle which caused damage to it. P.W.1 questioned the accused about his act of causing damage to their motorcycle. On that the accused abused and came upon P.W.1 to beat him. On hearing galata, the deceased, P.W.2 and younger son of the deceased came out and questioned the highhanded behavior of the accused in abusing P.W.1. On observing galata, the neighbours i.e. P.W.3 and others came and pacified both of them. It is alleged that the accused threatened the deceased and other family members with dire consequences and then the accused went to his house and brought a knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest and fled away. Due to that injury, the^deceased fell down. Immediately, the /' 3 4 KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.832 of 2017 deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool by P.W.1 and other neighbours for treatment. The Doctor- P.W.7 examined the deceased and declared him ‘brought dead’, (ii) On the next day i.e. on 02.4.2013, at about 6.30 A.M. P.W.1 went to the police station and a gave report. P.W.9-lncharge Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered in Crime No.70 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P7 is the First Information Report. P.W.9 went to the Mortuary of the Government hospital and secured the presence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and in their presence he held inquest over the dead body. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. He recorded statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others. Later, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch- Ex.PS. He also prepared Scene Observation Report-Ex.P4 at the scene of offence. He seized bloodstained earth, controlled earth and indicator of the motorcycle, which were marked as Mos. 3 to 5. He sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination, (iii) P.W.8- the then Associate Professor, Kurnool Medical College, i Kurnool, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was ‘due to hemorrhage and shock’ and “due to stab injury on chest”. He issued postmortem certificate-Ex.P6. (iv) P.W.10-Inspector of Police, Kurnool II Town Police Station took up further investigation. He examined the investigation conducted by P.W.9 and found it on correct lines. On 04.4.2013, he arrested the accused a case near 4 KSR, 1 & TCDS, Crl.A.No.832 Thungabhadra River water pump house in the presence of mediators-P.W.6 and another. On the confession made by the accused, he recovered crime weapon-M0.1 and shirt-M02 under a cover of panchanama-Ex.PS. He forwarded the material objects to RFSL under a covering letter-Ex.P9. RFSL report is marked as Ex.PIO. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed 1 charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10, apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 7. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him from the prosecution witnesses, but he did not choose to examine any witness in his defence. 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri. O. Kailashnadh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 8. Admittedly, there are two eye witnesses to the incident. They are P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are son and wife of the deceased respectively. P.W.3 is the neighbour of the accused and the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 specifically stated in their evidence that on 01.4.2013 at about 10.00 P.M. the accused dashed the motorcycle of the deceased and caused damage to the indicator of the bike. On hearing the sounds, P.Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased came out 5 KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.832 of 2017 and questioned the accused. During that juncture, an altercation took place between the accused on one side and the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the other side. The quarrel went on for some time and finally the accused took out a knife and gave one blow on the chest of the deceased and ran away. As such, Sri O. Kailashnadh Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be presumed that the accused had an intention to kill the accused. He further contends that if really the 9ccused had an intention to kill, he would have inflicted some more blows on the deceased. He also contends that it was not a premeditated attack and the action can be attributed as a fit of rage without any intention to, kill the deceased. As such, he states that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not at all sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 IPC, instead he can be convicted under Section 304 part-ll IPC as it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under Section 304 Part II IPC. 9. On the other hand, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal contending inter alia that the accused stabbed the deceased on the chest, which is a vital part. As such, the situs of the injury indicates the intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. '=T^ 6 KSR, J & TCDS, Crl.A.No.832 of 201' 10. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court. 1. (1983) 2 Supreme Court Cases 342 (Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2. (2008) Crl.LJ. (S.C.) 442 (Muthu Vs State) 3. (2020) 9 see 524 (Stalin Vs. State Represented by the Inspector of Police) 4. 2023 (1) ALT (CrI.) 421 ((Nellore Brahmaiah VS. State of A.P.) 11. This Court perused the above judgments. However, in view of the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses and also the catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as this court, it can be said that the prosecution has proved the attack made by the accused on the deceased. 12. Coming to the nature of offence, even according to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the attack happened out of an altercation between the accused and the deceased. The possibility of the accused causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control due to the heated argument, cannot be ruled out. As such, in the considered opinion of this court that it is not a case of premeditation and the accused may not be having any intention to kill the deceased, but he may be having knowledge that the injury may cause death of the deceased. Therefore, this court finds that the conviction and sentence imposed ..^by the learned Sessions Judge under / 7 KSR, J & TCDS, J Crl.A.No.832 of 2017 Section 302 IPC is liable to be set aside, rather the appellant/accused can be convicted under Section 304-Part II IPC. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool in SC No.282 of 2016 dated 06.06.2017 is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant/ accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-ll IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.25,000/-. As the appellant was released on bail, he is directed to surrender before the trial Court, forthwith to serve the remaining period of sentence. Failure to do so, the learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of appellant by issuing Non- bailable warrants. However, it is needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, Kurnool District / y 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison 4. The Station House Officer, Kurnool II Town Kurnool District 5. One CC to Sri. K Rathanga Pani Reddy Advocate 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Amaravathi 8. THREE CD COPIES Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District Police Station, Kurnool [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at High Court of Andhra Pradesh at stu TAG \ \\ HIGH COURT DATED;29/01/2025 . JUDGMENT AN0«^ CRLA.No.832 of 2017 gS^ 0 5 FEB 2025 cn .\o o> Current Section r-K> ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IN PART