Telangana High Court
Chirmani Venkatesh, Toparan Mandal And ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 5 August, 2024
Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.915 of 2015, 169 of 2016 & 356 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Smt. Justice P.Sree Sudha) These appeals are filed against the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.135 of 2013, dated 28.08.2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Siddipet.
2. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 R/w Section 149 of the India Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine Rs.500/- and also under Section 307 of the IPC sentencing them to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 324 of the IPC sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 147 of the IPC sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 148 of the IPC sentencing simple imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs.2,000/-.
3. Accused Nos.1 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No.356 of 2017 and mainly contended that there are no overt acts attributed against the accused and there are omissions in the evidence of the witnesses all the seizures made are not believable and the recovery is of no consequence. The trial 2 Court erred in convicting the accused basing on the assumptions.
4. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint given by Veeraboina Raju S/o. Raghupathi in which he stated there was a dispute between his elder father Veeraboina Shivaramulu's daughter Ms. Swapna and their villager Puram Nagaraju S/o Laxmaiah and regarding the same visited Police Station, Toopran on 12.06.2012 and after the discussions both the parties compromised the issue and returned to their houses. After they reached their houses at about 21.30 hours accused No.1 Chirmani Venkatesh, Chirmani Ganesh along with two others came on two motor bikes AP-28/DH-7858 and AP- 23/AE-2008 and met their relatives Puram Laxmaiah S/o. Sathaiah. After sometime they along with Puram Laxmaiah and his family members started scolding the complainant and their family members using very filthy language. At that time, the complainant's 2nd eldest father's son Veeraboina Sreenivas S/o Kishtaiah and his friends Vaddepally Purushotham S/o Satyanarayana, Vootla Krishna S/o Laxmaiah, Nalla Pentaiah S/o Narsaiah, Chanda Anjaneyulu S/o Balaiah were coming from that side. On that they caught Sreenivas by his shirt collar and started manhandling him. Seeing this, complainant's mother Veeraboina Pentalamma W/o Raghupathi, brother of 3 Veeraboina Sateesh rushed there to rescue Sreenivas. But Puram Laxmaiah S/o Sathaiah, Puram Nagaraju S/o Laxmaiah, Chirmani Venkatesh, Chirmani Ganesh attacked them with knives, while Puram Narsimha S/o Sathaiah armed with axe, and Chirmani Venkatesh, Chirmani Ganesh and two other persons who came with them and Smt Puram Mallamma attacked them with sticks. Seeing this incident, complainant's father Veeraboina Raghupathi S/o Rajamallaiah, younger father Veeraboina Sreesailam S/o Raja Mallaiah, younger father's son Veeraboina Chitt Babu S/o Sreesailam rushed there. But the above said persons attacked them all in a group with the knives, axe and sticks and stabbed his father due to which he fell unconscious. While shifting to the hospital, he expired on the way. Complainant's younger father Sreesailam suffered head injuries, while his brother Veeraboina Sateesh was also stabbed with knife due to which he was shifted to hospital for treatment. Chittibabu also suffered stabs on the leg and undergoing treatment in the hospital, while Sreesailam suffered injury on the head. Therefore he requested the police for necessary action against accused Nos.1 to 6 and their two friends who have all attacked them with knives, axe, sticks and killed the father of the complainant and also caused them injuries with deadly weapons.
4
5. Basing on the contents of petition, SI of police, Toopran PS has registered a case in Crime No.122 of 2012 under Sections 302, 307 R/w Section 34 of the IPC.
6. P.W.1 and P.W.5 are sons of the deceased Raghupati, P.W.2 is the younger brother's son of deceased and injured, P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased and injured, P.W.4 is the nephew of the deceased and eye witness, P.W.5 is the eye witness, injured and son of the deceased, P.W.6 is the eye witness, P.W.7 is the circumstantial witness, P.Ws.8 and 9 are the Medical Officers, P.W.10 is the panch witness for the confession of Accused Nos.1 to 6 and seizure panchanama, P.W.11 is the Assistant Director of FSL, Hyderabad, P.W.12 is the panch witness for inquest, scene and seizure of blood stained clothes of the deceased, P.Ws.13 and 14 are the Investigating Officers.
7. The prosecution contended that the testimony of the injured witness stands on higher footing and thus the trial Court convicted the accused and it needs no interference.
8. Whereas the learned counsel for the accused contended that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses in the complaint. The specific overt acts of each accused were not mentioned in detail. There was gathering of more than 50 people on that place of incident and thus it is for 5 the Court to scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses who are interested witnesses to base the conviction. All the material witness stated regarding the motive for the offence i.e., P.W.1's sister name was written on the school walls along with accused No.4 as such there is quarrel between both the families and they went to the police station and gave complaint against them but with the interference of the village elders, compromise was effected on 12.06.2012 and they have withdrawn their complaint.
9. It was stated by P.W.1 that at 21.30 p.m, father of accused No.4 and accused No.5 started abusing them when they have not responded accused No.4 caught hold of the shirt collar of P.W.6 and pulled him. Accused Nos.1 and 2 who are already in the scene also joined with the father of accused No.4 and accused No.2 stabbed with knife on the back of P.W.5 and he sustained bleeding injury then they rescued him from the above said person and brought him aside.
10. Accused No.6 was armed with the stick, accused No.5 armed with axe and attacked Srisailam and caused injury on his head. Accused Nos.1 to 3 armed with knife. Then accused No.2 stabbed on the chest of deceased on receiving the said blow the deceased fell down with bleeding injury. On seeing the same all the accused ran away from the scene. He further 6 stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 caused three stab injuries on deceased one is on chest and other two injuries on lower part of abdomen. Then, Srisailam and Sateesh were shifted to hospital and his father was also shifted to hospital in the meanwhile he succumbed to the injuries and then he gave complaint under Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination he stated that he reached the scene of spot after ten minutes. He stated one of his friend drafted the Ex.P.1 but he do not know his name. He did not have prior acquaintance with accused Nos.1 and 2 as he was at distance of four feet to the scene of offence as per Ex.P.1 accused persons are 6, and there are 10 to 15 persons at spot. About 100 villagers gathered at the time of alleged quarrel. He again stated that he knows accused No.1. In earlier quarrel accused No.1 came to the police station as an elder person to compromise. It was suggested that he has not mentioned in Ex.P.1 that who caused stab injury on the deceased and also on P.W.5 and also suggested that he did not mention that the accused caused stab injury on the chest of deceased and did not mention that who caused and who attacked P.W.3. He admitted that there is over writing on the date mentioned on the top of Ex.P.1 and also stated that it was prepared at police station. He stated at the time of compromise accused Nos.1 and other accused and their families were present and he also stated 7 that present quarrel took place on 12.06.2012 in presence of house of accused No.4. At the time of commencement of quarrel he was taking dinner on hearing commotion or cries of the quarrel he rushed to the scene. There are 20 members including both parties were at scene when he reached the spot. He saw the incident and there were street lights at the house of accused No.4. He also stated that accused Nos.1 to 5 attacked the deceased.
11. P.W.2 is the cousin of P.W.1. He stated that accused No.3 caught hold of the shirt caller of P.W.4 and Purushotham rescued from the hands of accused No.3 and P.W.5 also went to rescue him. Accused No.1 attacked Sateesh with a knife and stabbed on his stomach and on his back. Accused No.1 attacked P.W.2 also with a knife when caught hold his hand he sustained injury on the left leg and on left fore arm. He snatched the knife from the hand of accused No.1 and thrown it. In the meanwhile the other accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 armed with knives, accused No.6 armed with a stick, accused No.5 armed with axe. Accused No.2 stabbed deceased on his left side of chest and left side of lower abdomen and right side lower abdomen and when P.W.3 was lifting Sateesh to shift to the hospital, accused No.6 attacked and beat him with a stick on 8 his neck. He was treated in Balaji Hospital but Raghupati died in the meanwhile.
12. It was suggested that for the first time in the Court he stated that accused No.2 stabbed deceased on his chest and he has not stated before the police that accused No.6 beat Srisailam with a stick on his head and for the first time he stated that accused No.5 armed with axe and accused No.6 armed with stick was deposed first time before the Court but he denied it. He further stated that quarrel commenced prior to his arrival.
13. P.W.2 was the brother of the deceased and accused No.3 pulled P.W.4. She along with Sriramulu, Satyanarayana, and Raghupati rushed to the scene, then questioned accused No.3 and other people that why they are unnecessarily quarrelling as the issue was compromised. Accused No.2 stabbed P.W.5 on his left rib and back side. Accused Nos.3, 4, 2 and 1 armed with knives came on them and accused No.5 armed with axe, accused No.6 armed with stick. Accused No.6 instigated other accused to kill them, then their party and accused party scuffled each other. During the process accused No.1 caught the deceased and taken away from the scene and stabbed thrice on him. Other accused including accused No.1 attacked Sriramulu, Sathyanarayana and Srisailam. He received injury 9 on fore head in hands of accused No.6. It was suggested that he did not state before the Police that accused No.3 and his wife and accused No.6 beat him on the fore head and he received bleeding injury, the said part of statement is marked as D-1. He also stated that quarrel was commenced by accused No.3 who came in front of their house and started abusing them and he was shifted to the hospital.
14. P.W.4 stated that deceased family is his agnates. He further stated that at about 09.30 P.M accused Nos.3, 4, 1 and 2 came to their house and picked up quarrel. Accused No.3 pounced upon him and caught hold his shirt caller and pulled and he was rescued by Sateesh, Chinna Pentamma, Pedda Pentamma. In the meanwhile, accused Nos.1 and 2 were present at the scene and accused No.1 stabbed P.W.5 on his lower abdomen at right side and left side of the back with a knife and cause bleeding injury on palm and on his leg. Accused No.6 beat P.W.3 with a stick on his fore head. Accused No.5 armed with axe and attempted to kill them. Accused Nos.1 to 4 armed with knife. Raghupati was shifted to hospital. Sateesh was admitted in the hospital and he admitted that he has not received injuries in the hands of accused No.3 during his scuffle for accused No.3. It was also suggested that he has not stated before Police that accused No.1 stabbed. P.W.5 10 suggested that he has not stated before the Police that accused No.1 stabbed. P.W.5 and Chitti Babu received injuries on palm and leg and stated before the first time in the Court and it was also suggested before the police who caused injury to P.W.3 and also not stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 collectively attacked P.W.7 and the said part was marked as Ex.D.2. He further stated that deceased is his cousin junior paternal uncle and also stated that incident started at 09.30 P.M and completed by 10.30 P.M.
15. P.W.5 is younger son of the deceased. He stated that accused No.3 caught hold collar of P.W.4, he along with others tried to rescue him. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are also at the scene. Accused Nos.1 to 4 attacked them. Accused No.1 stabbed him with a knife on his right lower abdomen and on left back. In the meanwhile his mother rescued him. Accused No.1 stabbed Raghupati with knife on his chest and another and another blow on in his abdomen and another is on his back, thereby he fell down on ground. He also stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 armed with knife, stick and axe. Accused No.6 beat Srisailam on his fore head. Accused No.1 hacked Chittibabu/P.W.2 in the process of warding that blow he raised his hand and he received injuries on his left palm and left knee. Subsequently, all accused left the scene of offence. Senior paternal uncle took 11 Raghupathi and Chitti Babu to hospital as his condition was serious he was shifted to the hospital. He received two injuries. Accused No.1 stabbed on his left back he was treated as inpatient for 15 days.
16. P.W.6 is resident of Kallakal village and he is also an auto driver. He stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 belongs to Kallakal village. He stated that accused No.3 abusing P.W.4 and also bounced upon him and pushed him on to the ground. Accused No.3 stabbed P.W.5. Accused No.2 stabbed Raghupati on abdomen and on chest. Accused No.1 also joined with accused No.2 while attacking the deceased. Accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked P.W.2 but he escaped and sustained injury on right palm. Srisailam received injury in the hands of accused No.6 and he also beat with stick on his fore leg. P.Ws.3 and 4 shifted to the hospital. After the incident accused ran away from the place. It was suggested that he stated before the Court for the first time that accused No.2 stabbed deceased and accused No.1 joined accused No.2 while attacking Raghupati. Accused nos.1 and 2 attacked P.W.2 with knife was stated for the first time in the Court. He further stated that Srisailam sustained injuries in the hands of accused No.6 and P.W.2 received injury on the palm which was stated for first time before the Court. He further stated himself and deceased Raghupati, prosecution and 12 accused party belongs to one community. It was suggested that he has not stated before the Police that accused No.3 beat P.W.3 with a stick on his forehead and relevant part of 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.D.3. It was suggested that he gave different versions that accused No.6 beat P.W.3, accused No.2 attacked deceased, accused No.3 stabbed P.W.5 and accused Nos.1 and 2 stabbed P.W.2 which are not true facts.
17. P.W.7 is the Head Constable. He stated that on 12.06.2012 he received two applications, one from Mahesh and another from Nagaraju. He advised to compromise the matters and after one hour they came and reported that they have compromised the dispute. Later he came to know there is quarrel between the parties and also came to know that Raghupati died.
18. P.W.8 is Medical Practitioner who examined P.W.5 and issued Ex.B.2.
19. P.W.9 is the Chief Medical Officer who examined P.W.2 and issued Ex.B.3.
20. P.W.10 is the Revenue Inspector. He recorded the confessional statement of accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 in his presence and police also recorded confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 in his presence and later accused Nos.1 and 2 let them to the house of accused No.1 and produced one 13 knife and marked M.O.4. He stated that he has not observed any injuries on accused Nos.1 and 2.
21. P.W.11 worked as C.A.S at community health centre, Gajwel and conducted autopsy on the dead body of Raghupati and issued Ex.P.7/Postmortem Certificate and stated that injuries found on dead body may be caused by M.O.4. He stated that two injuries were found and they might have caused with sharp edged weapon.
22. P.W.12 is the panch witness in the scene of offence/panchanama and he stated that stick was seized in his presence. Two wheelers were also seized. He stated that M.O.15 and other two wheelers found near the house of accused No.4. They also found a stick and marked as M.O.5.
23. P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered crime No.122 of 2012 under Sections 302, 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Ex.A.12 is the printed FIR. It was suggested that accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 received injuries in the galata and referred them to Medical Officer, Gajwel and there to Gandhi Hospital and deposed falsely.
24. P.W.14 is Additional Inspector of Police who recorded statement of P.W.1 in detail. He transmitted the dead body for PME to community health centre, Gajwel. He arrested accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 on 15.06.2012 in the presence of P.W.10 and 14 another and also seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the instance of accused No.3. On 14.06.2012 accused Nos.1 and 2 surrendered and remanded to judicial custody. On 28.06.2012 recorded confessional statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 and also seized M.O.4. Exs.D.5, D.6. D.7 and D.8 are wound certificates of accused Nos.3, 6, 1 and 2 respectively. He also stated that there is no dispute between deceased and accused No.3 but quarrel is regarding son of accused No.3 eve teasing daughter of the brother of the deceased. He also stated that investigation does not reveals that accused utilized M.O.1 and caused injuries either to all the deceased 2, 3, 5 and 6. The compromise in the evidence of witnesses were also confronted to the Investigating Officer.
25. D.W.1 is the C.A.S at Gandhi Medical College who examined accused No.1 and issued Exs.D.9 & D.10 pertains to accused No.3. He stated that the injuries referred in Exs.D.9 and D.10 is possible in the clash between the persons.
26. The contradictions in the evidence read as follows:
WITNESS CHIEF CROSS
P.W.1 Pg.22-A-2 stabbed with a Pg 22-One of my friend
knife on the back of P.W.5 drafter Ex.P.1, but I do not know his name Pg.22-A-2 stabbed on the chest of deceased Pg.23-I reached the spot of scene after 10 minutes.
Pg.22-A1 to A3 caused three stab injuries on Pg.23-About 100 villagers 15 deceased-one on the chest gathered at the time of the and two injuries lower part alleged incident. of abdomen.
Pg.24-At the time of
commencement of quarrel I
was taking dinner
P.W.2 Pg 27-A-1 attacked P.W.5 Pg 28-Together 25 members with knife and stabbed in gathered at scene his stomach and his back Pg 27-A-2 stabbed deceased on left side of his chest and left side of lower abdomen P.W.3 Pg 21-A-2 stabbed P.W.5 Pg 31-About 10 to 30 on his left rib and back side persons gathered at the time of quarrel Pg.31-A-1 caught the deceased and taken away from the scene and stabbed thrice on him P.W.4 Pg 35-A-1 stabbed P.W.5 on his lower abdomen at right side Pg 35-A-1 attacked the deceased and stabbed his lower abdomen, chest and on his back.
P.W.5 Pg 39-A-1 stabbed me with Pg 40-About 20 people a knife on my right lower gathered at scene of offence. abdomen and on left back.
Pg 40-I was treated impatient Pg 39- A-1 stabbed the for 15 days in the hospital. deceased with a knife on his chest and another on his back P.W.6 Pg 42-A-3 stabbed P.W.5 in Pg 44 - A2 stabbed deceased the right plank. is not correct, the correct fact is A-1.
Pg 42-A-2 stabbed
deceased on his abdomen
16
27. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on citation in "Kuldip Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar" 1 wherein it was held that:
"Moreover, in order to attract Section 149, it must be shown that incriminating act was done to accomplish common object of unlawful assembly and it must be within knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. Essential ingredients of Section 141 also need to be established. In instant case, there was no material to show that all the accused shared the common object, the object itself not being proved and their participation in it was not made out by credible evidence."
He further relied on citation in "Vadivelu Thevar, Chinniah servai Vs. State of Madras" 2 wherein it was held that:
"In a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated.
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably 1 2011 (5) SCC 324 2 1957 SCR 981 17 after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses.
It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact."
He further relied on citation in "Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.P." 3 wherein it was held that:
"Witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is "wholly reliable", the Court should not have any difficulty in as much as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if the court finds that the witness is "wholly unreliable", neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such a witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial".3
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543 18 Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the citation in "Shanker Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh along with Suresh Dhobi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" 4 wherein it was held that:
"As a general rule, while appreciating evidence in a criminal case, Court should bear in mind, that it is not quantity, but quality of evidence that is material - It is the duty of Court to consider the trustworthiness of witness and evidence adduced on record and to assess the same in a prudent manner, whether the same inspires confidence, so as to accept and act upon, before convicting accused."
28. The counsel for the accused contended that P.Ws 1 to 6 are family members and there is no independent witness examined in this case and it was also argued that when it was held that accused Nos.1 to 4 attacked deceased and there was no clear evidence regarding accused Nos.1 to 6 as such involvement of accused Nos.5 and 6 not proved and thus it seems that there was no unlawful system. He further contended that there is no specific overt acts by each of the accused. All of them simply stated that all the accused bounced 4 (2018) 15 SCC 725 19 upon them and caused injuries at a time. Admittedly, the de- facto complainant and accused family belongs to the same village and community and residing nearby houses. When accused No.4 was eve teasing brother's daughter of the deceased there was quarrel between two families. They even approached the police to give complaint. In the meanwhile accused No.4 family also came to give complaint. At the intervention of the villagers there is compromise between both the parties but on the same day night accused picked up quarrel and man handled P.W.4. As a result there is quarrel between both the families. Even P.W.1's father died in the incident and others sustained injuries. There was no premeditation to commit murder. The quarrel took place suddenly between both the families in a heat of action in a sudden fight accused attacked the family members of P.W.1 and no stab injury was caused to the deceased and also injured witness were not sent to the prison. Even accused also sustained injury as per the medical evidence filed before the Court. Therefore this Court finds that the offence clearly falls under culpable offence not under murder i.e., Part 4 of Section 300 I.P.C shall be punished If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to 20 cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. In other words, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. The Apex Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh 5, held as under:
"Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part ll. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among 5 AIR 2006 SC 3010 21 other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."
29. Learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidence to prove that there was premeditation on the part of the accused and stated that the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. The necessary requirements applicable for Section 304 - II IPC is that if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both. There was scuffle 22 between two groups and many of the witnesses are close relatives except auto driver. As several accused involved in the case, there are several improvements, variations regarding specific overtacts by each of the accused. It is stated that accused also sustained injuries in the attack. In a criminal jurisprudence, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for imposing the greater penalty of life imprisonment. Hence, this Court on consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence finds it reasonable to bring the offence under part-II of Section 304 of IPC. In this case, the accused were in jail from 28.03.2015 i.e., nearly 9 years. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to modify the sentence already undergone by them.
30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment in S.C.No.135 of 2013, against the accused for the for the offence under Section 302 R/w Section 149 of IPC, is modified to that of Section 304 Part- II of I.P.C and is reduced to the period already undergone by him and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. M.Os.1 to 15 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
23
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN _________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE:05.08.2024 Bw