Godugu Yadaiah v. State Of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR TI IE STATE OIT TELANCANA AT I-IYDERABAI) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF IULY TWO THOUSAND AND T\\ENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL Crirninal A eal No.300 of 2018 Criminal Appeal under section 37aQ) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 27.70.2017 passed in S.C.No.82 of 2017 on the file of the Principal sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar.
Between:
Godugu yadaiah, S/o. Ramulu, aged 40 years/ Occ: Cooli" R/o. Inmulnarva Village, Kothui Mandal, now at Kandivanam Village, Farooq Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. AND ..Appellant/Sole Accused.
The state of Telangana, Rep.By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
...Respondent/ Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Ramachandra.
Counsel for the Respondent The Public Prosecutor' The Court made the following: |UDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3OO OF 2018 JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 27.10.2017 in S.C.No.B2 of 2OIZ on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar (for short, 'the trial Court").
2.
Heard Mr.l{.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- State.
3.
The brief facts of the case are ttrat pWl/Godugu Jangaiah is the brother o[ the appellant/ accused. It is stated that Mr.Narsimhulu, the younger brother of the accused died due to ill-health but, the accused blamed PW1 for not taking proper care of his younger brother. It is stated that, on 25.02.2016, the accused attacked PWl, when he was sleeping in front of his house, due to which he suffered bleeding injuries. It is also stated that the accused bolted the doors of the room in which PWs.2 and 3 were sleeping and on hearing the shouts of pWl, his wife forcibly opened the door and came out. Then, the accused ;
also beat her with sword and when the neighbours gathered all \ around, he fled away from that place.
4. On the report of PWl, PW7/Head Constable, Kothur registered a case against the accused and issued the First Information Report. During the investigation, PW9/S.1. of Police, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, arrested the accused on 29.O2.2O 16, recorded his confession, recovered the sword and produced him before the Magistrate. The blood stained clothes of victim and the sword were sent to FSL for analysis and human blood was detected on those items. He collected cotton swab from the scene of offence and sent it to F.S.L. but it did not contain the human blood. Upon receiving the F.S.L. report, PW9 filed the charge sheet. It was taken on file in P.R.C.No.l of 2OI7, by the Court of the learned Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. 5.
After appearance of the accused belore the Court, the Magistrate furnished the copies of the charge sheet and documents to the accused as per Section 2O7 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court vide impugned judgment found the petitioner guilty for the offence
/, punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine ol Rs.SOO/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ accused preferred the present Appeal. 6.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had no intention to kill his brother. Since, the younger brother of the appellant died due to ill-health, he tried to attack PW1 and the ingreclients as culled out under Section 307 of I.P.C. are not attracted in the present case on hand. Therefore, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.
7.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record in proper perspective rightly passed the impugned judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Rerrision 8.
On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.l to 9 and marked Exs.Pl to p7 and MOs. l to 3. On behalf of the defense, none were examined and no document was marked..-Up-on careful scrutiny of the oral and documentar5r evidence, the trial Court observed that the evidence of )
PWl/victim is quite clear stating that the accused caused injur.y on him with a sword. PW2, being the wife of PWl, also lr,itnessed the incident and she went to the rescue of her husband. PW3 is the brother of PW1 and the accused and PW3 spoke about the said incident. According to the medicai evidence i. e. , wound certificate marked as Ex P6, PW1 sustained lacerated injury over the fore head extending to the scalp, multiple laceration over occipital region, mastoid region and there was a fracture of front bone. The presence of human blood on the sword would also show that it was used for commission of the offence. Therefore, it was quite apparent that the weapon used by the accused and the part of the body where the wound was inflicted would show that the accused intended to kill PW1. Since, the offence occurred during the midnight, the evidence of PWi/victim, PW2 and PW3 was found to be cogent and convincing, to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the trial Court rendered the impugned judgment.
9.
A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order 02.O2.2018 suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and enlarged the appellant on bail on executing a personal bond l II
for Rs.20,O0O/- ri,ith two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of tl-re trial Court.
10. In the case on hand, the trial Court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.p.C., which finding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference.
I l. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the appellant suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court and as six long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Appeal, this Court in inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned and reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner to two (2) years of rigorous imprisonment instead of three (3) years.
12. The petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs.25,000/_ to the credit of the s.c.No.B2 of 2orz on the file of the learned principal Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar within a period of six months from today. On such deposit pWl/victim is permitted to withdraw the said amount upon filing an appropriate application before the trial court. Ir the petitioner fails to comply with the
(t ^ aforesaid direction, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
i 3. Except the above modification, in a-ll other aspects, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. sdl- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR / /rRUEcow/ / ON OITFICER To,
1. The Principal Sessions Judge- at Mahabubnagar'
2. One CC to Sri K.Ramaihaidra, Advocate [OPUCI 6: ffiE&j" ii"?"iri. Prosecutor, High Court Buiidlngs' Hvderabad pP{Jel
4. Two CD CoPies.
ICK/vAw
HICH COUR'I DATED:09/07 /202a JUDGMENI'
1HE S 14 14:
v CRLA.No.3O0 of 2018 (v a .T 1 :i Jo NOV 7t7 {'
a, t (:) /\1 Except the modification, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed in all other aspects. a.*q*b Frff\x