Telangana High Court
Mekala Satyanarayana vs The State Of A.P. on 3 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.945 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.07.2011 in S.C.No.434 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for SC/ST(POA) Cases-Cum-VII Additional District Judge at Warangal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.
3. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.
4. The allegation of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused on 11.01.2008 went to the premises of Collectorate office and climbed water tank and threatened that he would jump from there and also informed that he had consumed poison. According to P.W.1, the reason for the said act was that there was enquiry filed in the Civil Supplies Office against him which ended in acquittal, however he was not taken back into service. On enquiry by P.W.1, appellant stated that pesticide poison was also given to his son who was aged 2 around 16 years. 108 Ambulance was called and both, the appellant and his son were taken to hospital. P.W.1-Doctor examined both son of the appellant and the appellant. The appellant's son died on account of poisoning. However, since the appellant was conscious, he was given treatment and stomach wash was done. After stomach wash, he became stable.
5. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 who was working as a Clerk in the Collectorate Office. On the basis of the complaint, the Police investigated the case and charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his 16 year old son by administering poison. Further, charge sheet was also filed for the offence under Section 309 of IPC for attempting suicide. Learned Sessions Judge having examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.22 found that the appellant was not guilty of committing murder, however, found that without any intention, he has caused death of his son. Accordingly, while acquitting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC convicted him for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no proof that the appellant had administered or made available any poison to his son or administered it. Since 3 prosecution has failed to prove that it was the appellant who had in any manner given poison or administered poison to his son, the question of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC does not arise. Only for the reason of boy being found near the premises and died on account of poisoning, that itself will not be a ground to find the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC for administering poison.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the findings of the Court below are on the basis of the evidence that was adduced during the course of the trial. Since the reasons given and findings are probable and reasonable, conviction has to be sustained.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant was found at Collectorte Office with poison tin. Further, information was given to the public who gathered, regarding his son that his son consumed poison and was lying in the premises. On pointing out by the appellant, his son was identified by the people and also he was taken to the hospital. The Doctor-P.W.11 found that the boy had consumed poison and died. Further, the appellant was given treatment for consumption of poison. P.W.11 stated that since the appellant had consumed less 4 quantity of poison, he survived and accordingly, gave his opinion under Ex.P.15.
9. The following circumstances in the present case clearly indicate complicity of the appellant.
1. The appellant was found with poison tin in the premises of Collectorate Office and threatened to commit suicide.
2. The poison was found in his stomach and his stomach was subjected to washing/cleansing.
3. The appellant informed and pointed out his son stating that he had consumed poison.
10. In the present circumstances, the logical conclusion would be that the boy was given poison by the appellant and thereafter, he also consumed said poison. However, the poison consumed by the boy was in larger quantity, which resulted in his death.
11. For the above said reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. However, keeping in view that the case is of the year, 2011 and nearly 13 years have passed by, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to two years. 5
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed reducing the sentence of imprisonment to two years. The trial Court shall cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of sentence imposed by this Court. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 03.07.2024 dv