Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 502 (TS)

Paleti Ramesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-08-02

K.SURENDER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants are convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1.000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 304-II of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.120 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 passed by the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Siddipet. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. 2. Initially, the charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed for causing the death of the deceased one Paleti Sathyanarayana by beating him in the stomach. 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the both the appellants and deceased are neighbors and related as first cousins. On 07.01.2008, the appellants were marking the open plot beside them for constructing a house. The deceased objected stating that site belongs to him and no construction should be undertaken by the appellants. For the said reason, the appellants fisted the deceased in his stomach, as such, the deceased developed stomach pain and he was taken to the private hospital in Medchal. There he was examined and after taking treatment the deceased was brought back. However in the mid night, the deceased again developed stomach pain for which he was taken to Medchal hospital and he was referred to Medicity Hospital however the deceased was taken to Apollo hospital. On the next day around 11.00 a.m, the deceased died while undergoing treatment. For the said reason of appellants fisting the deceased in the stomach resulting his death, complaint was lodged. Though the complaint was filed on 10.01.2008 stating that he was beaten, the said crime was registered for the offence as suspicious death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. However, the police altered the section of law to Section 302 of IPC on 28.01.2008. 4. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the sons, P.W.2 is the wife, P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased respectively. P.W.5 is a private person who was declared as hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws 1 to 4 speak about the incident of the appellants demarcating the vacant land and on objection by the deceased, the appellants fisting deceased in his stomach. The witnesses also stated about the deceased being taken to the hospital initially and thereafter dying at Apollo Hospital. 5. P.Ws 1 to 4 speak about the incident of the appellants demarcating the vacant land and on objection by the deceased, the appellants fisting deceased in his stomach. The witnesses also stated about the deceased being taken to the hospital initially and thereafter dying at Apollo Hospital. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the deceased died due to his liver related problems, it was attributed to the minor altercation that took place. For the reason of there being no weapons used or any evidence to suggest that fisting resulting in death, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that deliberately the appellants had beaten the deceased resulting in his death, for which the court had correctly come to the conclusion that it is an offence punishable under Section 304-Part-II of IPC. Therefore the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with. 7. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 speak about the altercation and when A1 fisted the deceased, he fell down. Thereafter, A2 also assaulted the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 4 went to the rescue of the deceased and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. 8. As seen from the evidence of P.W9, the Doctor stated that the cause of death is due to head injury and blunt injury to the abdomen. However, during cross-examination, he deposed as follows: “As I noticed infection of liver of the deceased the deceased must have been suffering with a liver problem. I cannot say since how long he was suffering with liver infection. I did not send the liver/kidnies to FSL report for examination and report. It is true that I have not mentioned in Ex.P7 that the deceased died on account of head injuries and injury to abdomen. The deceased was having a disease to lungs and he was suffering with liver disease and lungs disease prior to the death.” 9. As seen from the evidence of P.W.9, Doctor, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, there was fisting by A1 and he was taken to the Doctor immediately. The deceased was suffering with several ailments which led to his death. The same is evident from the statement of the Doctor, P.W.9, which is extracted above and also the postmortem examination report Ex.P7, which says that ‘liver pale and infected and left kidney swollen and contused.’ 10. The deceased was suffering with several ailments which led to his death. The same is evident from the statement of the Doctor, P.W.9, which is extracted above and also the postmortem examination report Ex.P7, which says that ‘liver pale and infected and left kidney swollen and contused.’ 10. The factum of the deceased suffering from several ailments was clearly stated by the Doctor and also evident from the postmortem examination Ex.P7. Further, the investigating officer failed to examine the private Doctors who treated the deceased in the hospital at Medchal and also at Apollo Hospital. The non examination of the said Doctors is fatal to the prosecution case for the reason of the initial assessment regarding receiving of injuries and diagnosis would have given a clear picture as to the sufferings of the deceased and also would have given reasons for his death. The postmortem examination report was conducted and the report found the kidneys and liver were infected. It is not the case that altercation or fisting by the appellants resulted in such injuries to the liver and kidneys of the deceased. The medical examination further states that both the lungs were collapsed and blackened and there was two liters of blood stained fluid in peritoral cavity against the column of stomach and its contents in Ex.P7. The said collapsing and blackening of lungs, two liters of blood stained fluid in peritoral cavity and also swelling infection of liver and kidneys are not explained by the prosecution. Admittedly, the deceased was suffering from various ailments. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find that altercation or subsequent fisting by the appellants has resulted in death. 11. Accordingly, the sentence of conviction of the appellants under Section 304-II of IPC is set aside. However the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The case is of the year 2008 and 14 years have lapsed, this court deems it proper to impose the sentence of imprisonment of period already undergone by the deceased. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.