Lathi Not Deadly Weapon, Death Caused By Sticks Not 'Murder' In Absence Of Intention To Kill: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that causing the death of a person by hitting him with a lathi or stick does not necessarily imply intent to cause death and thus may count as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K Srujana thereby overturned the conviction of the accused under section 302 IPC (murder) to 304-II (culpable homicide...
The Telangana High Court has held that causing the death of a person by hitting him with a lathi or stick does not necessarily imply intent to cause death and thus may count as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice K Srujana thereby overturned the conviction of the accused under section 302 IPC (murder) to 304-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
"The accused bet (sic) the deceased with sticks which are normally used in the villages and they cannot be termed as deadly weapon. Except for payment of amount which was due by the Vittal to Srisailam, there are no other serious disputes between the accused and the deceased which leads to murder him. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a planned murder and they attacked the deceased with an intention to cause death."
The complainant alleged that the accused had assaulted him and the deceased over a disagreement related to the payment of agricultural proceeds. The confrontation escalated to a violent assault in which the deceased sustained fatal head injuries and died at the scene.
The Court noted that all the accused were related to the deceased and that it was a trivial dispute.
It was determined that the death was indeed homicidal. However, it found that the accused had used sticks as weapons, which were not inherently deadly. Furthermore, the attack did not appear to be premeditated, and there was no evidence to suggest that the accused had the intention to cause death. Therefore, the High Court held that the offence committed by the appellants fell under Section 304 Part II.
"Therefore, it cannot be said that they intended to cause injury which is sufficient to cause death. At the most, it can be said that by inflicting such injuries, they had knowledge that he was likely to cause the death in which case the offence committed by him would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. "
The bench thus partly allowed the appeal. Considering the time elapsed since the filing of the appeal, the court also reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them.
Counsel for appellant: B.Vengal Reddy, counsel representing A.Gayathri Reddy,
Counsel for respondents: T.V.Ramana Rao, Addl Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Kothuri Kishtaiah vs. State of A.P