I s492 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

ANO

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3336 OF 20'18

Criminal Appeal Uis 374 (2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment made in S.C.No.

563 of 2017 dated

'l

1.07.2018 on the file of the Court lX Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, FAC VllAdditional lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Between:

Gangipalli Satyanarayana, S/o.Late G.Yellaiah, Age 52 years, R/o. H.No.'18-

2-6012119, Ambedkar Nagar, Nagulabanda, Falaknuma, Hyderabad

...ApellanUAccused

AND

State of Telangana, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at

Hyderabad

... Res pod enUC om plai n ant

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

enlarge the Petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in S.C.No.

563 of 2017 daled 1110712018 on the file of the court of the Vll Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pending disposal of Crl.A.No. 3336 of 2018,

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P Prabhakar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Syesd Yasar Mamoon,

Additional Public Prosecutor

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF

-

IILANGANA

AT: HYDERABAT)

HON'I]t,L, SRI.IIJS'I'ICE K. LAKSTI ,\N

ANt)

HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDH,. RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3336 OF 2( l8

DA-I.t : l2-03-2026

Between

Mr. Gangipalli Satyanarayana 1.1 pcl lant - Accused

Vs

The State o["['elauganzL. rcp.br its

Public Prosecutor. [ [igh (.]ourt lt [ [r d Rcsponc :nt - Complainant

This Court rnadc thc [ollou'inc

JUDGMENT: (Per Ilon'ble Srr Justicc K. Lakshrnan)

Heard Mr. P. Prablral<ar Reddy. Iearnecl ounsel lor the

appellant - accused and Mr. Syed. Yasar Mamoon, l: Lrned Additional

Public Prosecirtor appearing on behalfofthe rcsponcr rt- State

2.

'l'his

appcaI is file-d b1 thc appc'llant - ac ] r:ied challenging

the judgrner.rt datecl 11.07.20 l8 in S.C. No.563 ot'1017 passed by

learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. i Iyderabad.

3. Vide rhe aloresaid judgrnent, learned trial (]olrrt convicted

the appellant - accused lbr Lhe otlencc under Section i02 ol IPC, and

I

2

KL..I& BRVR.I

Cd 1 \o 1116 ol l(llS

accordingly sentenccd him to undergo Iife imprisonrnent and to pav

fine ol Rs. 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default to

undergo simple imprisonment lor a period of two (02) months.

4. Thc case ol-the prosecution is as undcr:

i) The accused. a labourer, stopped working and was staying at

his house situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Nagulabanda, L-alaknuma,

I{yderabad. llis tirst w.il-e trad deserted hirn long back. Out of their

wedlock, lre has onc son. namely G. Mahesh (pW.3). He was married

and residing alor-rg with accused.

ii) Thereafter'. rhe accused married Susheela (deceased), who

was working as an Aa.\,ct in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.

Out of their wedlock, the accused was blessed with one son, namely

Sai Kiran (PW. I ) and one daughter, namely Deepika. Second wil.e,

Susheela also brought up PW.3, son of the accused with his first wif'e.

along with her children.

iii) The accused rvas addicted to alcohol and was not doing any

work. His second rvil'e. Susheela, used to go to work on daity basis.

For the past lbw months, the accused startcd suspecting the character

ofdeceased, quarrelling rvith her and beating her daily in an inebriated

condition. l'hc accuscd becarnt-' rnore suspicious when the deceased

l

relused to lrave sexual intercourse rvith him and pr sumed that she

might have illegal affairs with some other person

I i 1& llt{ R.l

i \o lil(rr)l l(rltl

iv) On 01.01.2011 , PW.3 atong with L'r\/., and his sister.

Deepika went to Karimnagar to au.end a lunction. On 02.01 .201 7,

PW. I along with LW.9 also went to Karimnagar, trr bring his sister,

Deepika

v) On 02.0 I .2oll in the cvening hours, tL : accused took

money from the deceased and consunted alcohol. Ile lso brought one

bottle of toddy and gave it to the dcceased, w,ho als r consumed the

same. Thereafter, the deceased slept in the first roc r L.

'[-he

accused

went near the deceased and asked her sexual favour. rut she refused,

on that, he started beating hcr-. Thcn. the dcceasec .\,ent out of the

house and brought their neighbour (PW.2), who chi rcd thc accused

and asked him to sleep. Then, the accused infonrt I PW.2 that he

would watch TV and sleep. [.atcr. I)W.] lett rhe horr:i

vi) After f-ew minutes, the accused noticed rl rt the deceased

was in deep sleep, he went near her and removed her , rnga and saree,

and tried to participate in sex with her, but she dicl r rt allow him to

do, and thereby he became lrrrious and took the lonq., in his hand and

smothered her with the langa and strangulated her r,. h tlre thrcad of

4

(1,,I & BRI\,{R,J

Crl. No 1116 of20l8

the langa. After a lew lninutes, he found the deceased motionless.

Immediately he came out of the house and slept in lront of the house

In the early morning at about 6.30 hours, he rvent to the house ol

PW.2 and infbrmed hcr that the deceased is not waking up and

requested her to comc. On that. PW.2 and her husband went to rhe

house of the accused and sar.,"' the deceased motionless. Then, PW.2

asked her husband to call neighbours. Meanwhile, all the neighbours

gathered neat the house of the deceased. PW.2 with the help of others

wore the lctnga and sdree to the deccased and they all suspected the

accused. On that the accused f'led away frorn the spot. Thus, the

accused cornrnitted thc aloresaid off'ence.

5. On 0.i.01 .2011 at 09.i0 hours, PW.l gave Ex.Pl - Telugu

written reporr with PW.9, [nspector of Police of Chatrinaka,

Hyderabad, rvho in turn registeled a case in Crime No.04 of 2017 and

issued Ex.PS - FIR and theleaftcr handed over the case to PW. t0,

lnspector of Police, for fur-ther investigation

6. PW. l0 examined tlie witncsses and recorded their

statements. He had also taken stcps for conducting autopsy over the

dead body ofthe deceased and dlarving ofscene ol offence etc.

f

.1...r & BRNIR .l

rl . No l.l.16.l l0l8

7. On rcce ipt o1- the post-ntonem exarnirLr ou report fiom

PW.5, PW.l I altcled thc Section fiorn Section l7,l r

'Cr.P.C.

to 304

ol IPC.

'fhcreafter,

he laid charge sheet against thL accused fbr the

offence under Section - 302 ol IPC'.

-l'he

samc \vas ,

.rnrnitted

to the

trial Court and the sarne was taken on tile as S.C. N. l)0 of 2015 for

the offence under Section - 302 oflPC

8. The trial Court lramed charge lor the r c,resaid ofl-ence

against the accused and thcn proceeded u,ith thc trial

9. During trial, prosecution cxanrined PWs. I ., I I and rnarked

Exs.Pl to Pl0 and MO.l to prove its case. On bchrl .rl'thc accused,

his legal aid counsel got tnarked contradiction pol'rio r I rhe staternent

olPW.2 as Ex.Dl.

10. After completion ol evidence on be hall'()

'

ltc prosecution,

the accused was exarnined under Scctiorr - i I I ot'( r. '.('.

'l'herealier,

upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded c r,,iction against

the appellant helein for the albresaid oll'ence and acc r rlingly inrposed

litb imprisonrnent. Challenging the said corrr,.iction rnd scnrcncc ol

lil-e irnprisonment, the appellant pretcrred the presenr I rpeal

6

KL.] & I]RN,{R.J

Crl A \o l.ll6 ol20l8

I l. Learned counsel lor the appellant - accused contended:

There is no direct evidence in this case.

Prosccution lailed to pror c the case beyond reasonable doubt

Entire burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case. In this

Last seen theory was proved through the evidence of

pW.2.

Though there is no direct evidence, there is ample

circumstantial cr idcnce ri hiclt pror es the case ol prosecution

beyond reasonablc doubr.

\l

,/

tlThe entire case rests on circumstantial evidence

iii. There are ornissions and contradictions in the evidence of

PWs. 1, 2 and 7

No motive was proved b1,the prosecution

I

IV

vl

ll.

case, the prosecution did not dischalge its priniary burden

vii. Without considering the aloresaid aspects, the trial Courl

recorded convictior-r

With the aforcsaid submissions. he sou-qht to set aside the conviction

and sentence ot' tif-e imprisonrrcnt recotdcd against the appellant

herein

12. On the othcr hand, leamed Additional Public prosecutor

would submit as under

l

r-r..J & BRN,tR.l

rl A No 1116 oa70l8

The prosecution proved motive on the paft ,t the accused inllt

vl.

commission of o ff-ence

IVThe medical evidence significantly proves llL, car-rse of death

was due to strangulation associated with srnotlr, ring.

v. There is no rebuttal evidence liom the side o1'rr c Lrsed.

All the circumstances form a complete chair to connect the

vii. The trial Court relying on the evidence both oral and

accused in commission of of1-ence

documentary, recorded conviction against the Lppe[[ant herein.

There is no error in it warranting interference tr this Court

With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to dis r r ss the present

appeal

13. In view above rival subrnissions, the

1r,r it that tzrlls [or

consideration b1, this Court is

Whether the conviction and sentence of irr rrisonment

recorded by the trial Court for the offence unr[, r Scction -

102 of IPC against the appellant herein - r::used are

sustainable, both on facts and in law?

14. In view of the aforesaid rival submissior : belbre dclving

into the factual rnatrix, it is necessary to brietlv ad r I to the purport

\

.,

.3

8

Kt_..r & RR R.J

Crl A No 1116 of20lE

of the olfence alleged. Section - 300 ol IpC conternplates the gravest

form of culpable homicide amounting to murder, requiring proof of an

act done with the intention or knor.vledge that it would cause death.

15. PW. I is not only the cornplainant, but' also the son of the

deceased and the accused. Ile has been rvorking as a Constable in

City Army Reserve Head

Quarter.s, Ilyderabad. He deposed rhat his

deceased mother was an employee in Osmania Gcneral Hospital. I{e

along with his parents. brother (PW.i

) and his rvif'e and sister were

residing in one house- On 25'h or 26tr' Dccembcr. 20 16, his brother

(PW.3) along with his wife and sister wenr ro Karirnnagar ro attend a

function. On02.01.2017 in betw.een 10.00 and I t.00 p.M.,

he wenr ro

Karimnagar to bring his sister since she u,as lraving exautination on

the next day. On 03.0l.2017 at about i.00 hours. lre and his sister

started their return journey by Car. W[ren they reached pragnapur,

his

maternal uncte (PW.4) made a call and inlbrmed that his morher died

They retumed horne and lound the dcad bodv of his mother.on the

bed. He found an injury on the head of his mother. fhereafter, he

gave Ex.Pl report with the police

i) During cross-exarn inalion exccpt posing onc qucstion, there

was no much cross-examination. For the said question, this rvitness

9

Li .t& ltRt\'11{.1

(rl Nol.l16ol l0l8

answered that at the tirne of giving the report, he ha< nt-r suspicion on

any one. On thc same day of his report in the aftr: noon, tl're police

had examincd him

16. PW.2 is tl.re neighbour of the accused ar d deceased. She

deposed that on 02.01.2017 at about 11.30 P.N4 r.vhile she was

sleeping in her house, the deceased came and inlor ned her that the

accused was quan'eling with her and asked her to cor e to their house.

When she accompanied with the deceased to her hc rse. the accused

was fbund in drunken state. She told him not to crcirr : any galata and

advised him to sleep in the veranda& and told thit [alks would be

made next morning. On the next morning at 6.30 , M., the accused

came to her house and infonned her that his wif-e wl, not u,aking up.

Then, she along u,ith her husband went to the hou:,r of accused and

found the deceased died lying in her bed facing .r walds sk1, rvith

swollen belly. She lound her petticoat and only jrr l:et in pell-rnell

condition, but she did not find her saree. She sent h3 husband to call

neighbours and relatives of the deceased. The n: p,hboirrs, LW.4,

LW.5, LW.8, LW. l2 and Lavanya came there. Wit I thcir help, she

tied the petticoat to the body of the deceased and r,., r rltped the saree.

Sornetime thereafler, the police came and the body ,, us shiticd to the

\

t0

KI,.I & BIiI,IR,J

(lrl . Nr'lll6of2018

hospital. She lurther deposed that the accused rvas suspccting the

character of the deceased.

i) During cross-examination, PW.Z admirted that she did not

state to the police that the deceased was also in drunken state as in

Ex.Dl

17. PW.3 is the son of the accused through first wife - Shobha.

He deposed that the accused was in the habit oi consuming alcohol

and not attending to any work. The accuscd used to suspect his step-

mother (deceased) and abuse her. On 03.0 1.2017 while he was in

Karimnagar, his maternal uncle (PW.4) nrade a call and informed that

the deceased died. Immediately. he along with his rvil-e retumed home

by 9.00 A.M. and found the dead body of deceased on the bed. His

father was not found at the home

18. PW.4, maternal uncle ol'PW. I and PW.3, deposed that on

02.01.2017, he went to the house of PW. I and urct hirn and the

deceased and spent for some time there. Half-an-hour later, PW. I

went to Karimnagar. The accused was scolding his r.vife suspecting

her character. When he questioned the accused why, he was scolding

his wife, the accused remained silent. Then he left their house. On the

u

,l t& II{MR.l

r (i -ll.l6 ol lr)18

next day at about 6.00 A.M., he went to their hou:;( to meet PW. I

since he told him that he would come by next monrjr 0.. By the time

he reached the house ol thc accused. he found PW.2 r nd her husband

and two or three other' ladies. They told him that t[ r ,leceased died.

He found an inj ury on the back ol the deceased l- :ad. Then, he

immcdiately' infbnned the same to PW. I over phone. tle did not find

the accused at the tirne ol his visit.

i) During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted tI at the deceased

had the habit of consurning toddy which the accused [r bituated to her

19. PW.5 is the doctor, rvho conducted autops .' over the dead

body ofthe deceased. He deposed that on 03.01.20 I

/he

received a

requisition fionr thc police to conduct autopsy over tle dead body of

the deceased. Accordingty, he conducted the autopsy r n tl're same day

from 2.40 P.M. to 1.40 P.M. He found the follorv Lr g anrc-momem

lnJunes:

(a) A contusion on the soalp of sizc l5Xl0 cms., ov(ir

Temporal and left occipital regions which were re c

(b) Anothcr oontusion over the Scalp ol size 4x3 crr s

paricto region red in colour.

(c) Another contusion over the scalp olsize 2x2 ctrs

fiontal legion red in colour.

the loft Parieto

in oolour.

, ovcr the right

I

o\.'er the risht

2

(l

.l & llll\lR. I

( rl A  il i6 oflr)ts

(d) A conrusion on the lelt I crnporal muscle region red in colour.

2. Contusions 5 in nurnber each of size tx0.75 crns., over Mucosal

surface o['thc lorrer lip red in colour rvith teeth tightll clenched.

3. (a) A contLrsion of3x2 crns., ovcr the risht sidc upper part olrhc ncck.

3cms.. he low the right angle of Mandible, redrlish.

(b) A contusion in thc intemal surlace olrhe neck diflused orer right

and lclt side, uppcr and mid part of the neck rvith contusion

around tips of superior horns of thl,roid cartila_qe.

(c) Gross congcstion u.ith sub-nrucosal haemorrhascs over llpiglottis.

(i lottis and Trachca.

(d) lrracture in tips ofsupcrior horns ol both thyroid carlilagcs.

i) He furrher deposed that the cause of death w.as due ro

strangulation associated with smothering. I{e gave his final opinion

vide Ex.P2 and llnal opinion vide F_x.p3.

'

ii) During cross-examination, he adrnitted that skull was not

having any injury. The spinal column and spinal cord nerc intact.

20. PW.6. a panch witness for inquest, deposed that he- is the

resident ol sarne locality where the accused and deceased reside. As

per the instructions of porice, he visited Mortuary. osmania Generar

Hospital and r.r,,as present ar the tirne of inquest on 0j.0 I .20 I 7 at I .00

P.M. LW. 13, another panch was also present. The1, lound an injury

I_l

(L I.( I]RMR.]

('rl ' ijl6 oll0l8

on the neck ol the deceased, but he did not express rny opinion how

she died. Er.P4-inquest pantlunanta bcars his signi.t rre

i) During cross-exam inat ion nothing useful r as eLicited fiom

this witness

21. P'W .7 , pctnch r,' itne ss {br conless , n and scizure

panchanama. deposed that he was rvorkingAS' i Ilaqe Revenue

Oltlcer, Ottlce ol Bandlaguda Tahsildar. On the ir;u'uctions of his

'['ahsildar,

hc r,"'ent to thc policcstatronalong ,lith his olilce

colleague, Mr. Sanrpath Kunrar ([-W.l4), who is ,pecial Revenue

Inspector. I'hcy found the accused in the custody o tolice. On their

questioning, the accused conf'cssed that he was ad,l cted to alcohol,

developed suspicion against his wife and while c: nrnitting sexual

assault, she resisted him. Then he smothered her anrl <illed her. The

accused turthcr conlissed that on the night he had aken liquor and

made his rvil'e to consume toddv.

'l-he

accused furtlr.r confessed that

hc killed his wife with petty coat and thread. Ex.P5 is the

gtuttchanarno and N,{O. I is thc y,ellow colour petty corr '*,ith thread.

i) During cross-exam iuation nothing useful r as elicited frorn

th is witness

\

l4

KI-.J & BR\.fl1..1

Crl No -ll:6 o[2018

22. PW.8 is the panch witness for scene ol oflence and rough

sketch. He deposed that on 03.10.2017 as per instructions olpolice,

he went to the house ol the accused, where he saw a dead body ol

woman. The police observed sunoundings in their presence. The

police prepared a panchanama and drawn a rough sketch in their

presence. He signed on both ofthem which are Exs.p6 and

p7.

i) During cross-examination nothing useful was elicited from

this witness.

23. PW.9 is the Sub-Inspector of' potice.

Hc deposed with

regard to PW. I giving Ex.p t - reporr with him on 03 .01 .201j at 9.30

hours with regard to death of his mother (deceased) and pursuant

thereof, his registering a case in Crime No.04 of 2017 (Ex.pg) under

Section - t 74 of Cr.P.C. and handing over the same to pW.

1 0.

i) During cross-exam ination, pW.9

admitted that though it was

mentioned in the report that there is no suspicion against anybody, to

ascertain whether it is natural death or unnatural, FIR was registered.

24. PW. 10, lnspector of police,

deposed that on receipt ol case

file from PW.9, he visited the house of the accused, found the dead

body of thc deceased. He took steps for conducting autopsy over the

t5

(I- ] & BRMR.J

I I A NJ -1116 of2018

dead body of the deceased. He secured panch witrL, sses and drawn

scene ol o|-ence and rough sketch as in Exs.P6 and I) '. Hc examined

and recorded statelnents of relevant witnesses. Or receipt. of post-

mortem exarnination reporl, he lranded over the ce .s ] to PW.l 1 for

further investigation.

25. PW. t I, [nspector of Police, deposed that basingon

statement ol PW.3. he altered section fi'om 174 of Cr P.C.. to Section

302 of IPC. The accused conlessed the offence ir, the presence of

panch witnesscs and the same was recorded. After receipt of final

opinion from the doctor, he tilcd charge sheet againsl he accused

26. On an overalI examination of prosecutior witnesses, it is

clear that there is no direct evidence with regard tc commission of

offence by the accused. The entire evidence rests : r cilcumstantial

evidence. J o consider with regard to any motiv : cn the part of

accused in commission of off-ence, the evidence of I) ,\/s.2. 3 and 4 is

crystal and clear. PW.2, neighbor o[ the accused r.r cl the deceased,

deposed that tlle accused and his wile were alway s luanelling.

The

accused was slrspecting her char4cterPW.3, son of the accused

through his llrst rvil'e, deposcd that the accused us: lto suspect his

l

\

l6

KL.J & BR\,1R..I

( rl A No il t6 oa2ol8

step mother (deceased) and abuse her_ pW.4,

rnaternal uncle of

PWs. I and 3, also deposed that previous day of incident when he went

to the house of accused, the accused was scolding the deceased

suspecting her character. Thus, b1, virtue of the evidence ofaloresaid

witnesses, it can be presumed that there was motive on the part of the

accused prior to commission of olfence. The accused failed to elicit

anything useful h'orn the above rvitnesses during cross-examination to

disprove the sarne.

27. Now. i[ has to be seen whether there was motive on the part

of the accused at the time of commission of offence in the present

case. According to pW.7

bel.ore whom the accused confessed that he

was addicted to alcohol, developerJ suspicion against the deceased and

when he intendcd to have sex, she resisted him, then he smothered her

and killed her. The accused further confessed that on that night he

had consumed liquor.and made the deceased to consume toddy. Thus,

the evidence on record does not establish that the accused had the

intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was

sufficient in the ordinaty course of nature to cause death. The

incident appears to have occurred in the heat of passion during a

sudden quarrel between the husband and wite inside their house.

t7

T:I ,J & I]I(MR.J

rl A \o ill6 o{ 201t

28. With regald to last seen theory, as pet .he evidence of

prosecution rvitnesses, it is clear that belore the deatlr ol the deceased,

the accused and the deceased were in their house. lr this regard, the

evidence of PW.2 is lelevant. l'}W.2 has specificall', deposed that on

02.01.2027 at about 11.30 P.M.. while she was sleeJr rg in her house,

the deceased carne and inforrned her that her husbar J (accused) was

quarrelling $,ith her and askcd her to come to her (r €ceased) house

She accompanied the deceased to her house that timetheB

accused was also present at that house. The accu:;, cl was found in

drunken state. She told him not to create any galota rnd advised him

to sleep in the verandah and told that talks wou i, be made next

moming. On the next morning at 6.30 a.m., the accr sed came to her

house and inlormed her that the deceased was not v, king up. Then,

she along with her husband went to the house of he accused and

found the deceased died lying on her bed facing t< wards sky with

swollen belll . In vierv of the ei,'idence ol PW.2, it i:; :lear that on the

date of incident. the deceased and the accused rr,er ' in their house

only. Even PWs.3 and 4 deposed that the accusecl las not found at

the scene ol of'fbncc on the date of incident.

-l'1.r:

i:lbrc. the facts

relating to horv thc incidcnt occutred are espc<,r rlll' within the

KL,J & AR|\4R,I

Crl A. No 1116 ot.20t8

knowledge of the accused. In such circumstances, the burden shifts

upon the accused under Scction - 106 olthe Indian Evidence Act,

1872, to o ffer a reasonable explanation regarding the occurrence.

There is no explanation from him.

29. Wirh regard ro the injuries found on the dead body of the

deceased, the evidence ol pWs. t, 4, 5 and 6 is relevant. pW. I -

complainant and son of the accused and the deceased deposed that he

lound an injury on the head ol his mother (deceased). pW.4,

rnaternal uncle of pW.l

and pW.j

also deposed that he found an

injury on the back of her head. pW.5,

the doctor, who conducted

autopsy over thc dead body of tlie dcceased, specifically deposed that

he found ante- rnortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, the

details of which have been extracted above. According to him, the

cause ol death u as due to strangulation associated with smothering.

PW.6, panch for the autopsy also deposed that he found an injury on

the neck of the deceased. Thus, testimonies of pW.

1, the complainant,

PW.4, maternal uncle of pWs.I

and 3, pW.5,

the doctor, who

conducted the post-moftern examination, and pW.6,

panch witness,

conclusively establish that the deceased had sustained ante-mortem

injuries, thercby indicating a hornicidal death.

/

-,/

t9

t.L ..t & BIlr,lR,J

lrl . \o ll16 oa20l8

30. With regard to cont-ession leading to disct ver). as already

discussed above, according to PW.7, when he questi( ned the accused

as to why he rvas with the police, he conlessed that ht rvas addicted to

alcohol, developed suspicion against his wife and v' ile intending to

have sex, she resisted him, then he smothered her an i kilted her. He

lurther confessed that on that night, he had consumecl iquor and made

his wife to consume toddy. The police have shor'vn rim a petty coat

and its thread and asked whether he killed tris u,it'e u i h the same. On

that, the accused confessed that he kitled his wif'e u i fr thc petty coat

and thread. The same was seized by the police as in I 1O. i.

'['hus,

the

said disclosure statement, to the extent that it led to he discovery of

material objects, is admissible in evidence under Se,r rion - 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The recover)' of the incri rrinating articles

at the instance of the accused is a strong circumstan: ' connecting the

accused with the commission of the off'ence.

3t. Though therc is no direct evidence ri, tr regard to the

commission of oflence by the accused, the lrosecution

has

successfully established the chain of circumstanti,t evidence. The

circumstance ol "last seen tosether" has been dL v proi,ed. The

medical evidence estabtishes that the deceased sr stained injuries

0

kl-..r & tsRl{._l

Crl r\. No.lji6 ot 20lE

which resulted in death. 1'he prior rnotive on the patr of the accused

has also been provcd. i.e., the accused used t0 suspect the character of

the deceased. All thesc circurnstances lonn a complcte chain pointing

unerringly towards the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with

any hypothesis olinnocence. Hence. it can be safery concruded that it

is the accused who comnritted the offence.

32. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that

PW. I dcposed in liis evidencc that he lound an injury on the head of

his mother, whereas i, Ex.P | - reporl given by hirn to the police, there

is no such mention of finding injury and, therefore, such discrepancy

would cut to the root of the prosecution. It is apt to note that the

complaint (FIR) is not expected to be an encyclopedia of facts. It

contains the basic version of thc occurrencc. Minor omissions or

improvernents made during deposition do not automatica y render the

witness unreliable unless thcy aurount r.o a materiar contradiction

alfecting the core of the prosecution case. Therefore, the said

contention of learned counsel lor the appellant is unsustainable.

33. In view. of the aloresaid discussion, it is clear though the

prosecution has alleged nrotive on the ground that the accused

2I

I ]. . .. IJR\ll{.1

-l A \,, il16 of20lE

suspected thc charactel of the deceased, the evidenc, on tecord does

not establish that the accused had the intention to ( use death or to

cause such bodily injury as was sulficient in the olr inarr course of

nature to cause death.

'fhe

incident appears to har': occr.Lrred in the

heat of passion during a sudden quarrel between the lr rsbrand and wile

inside their house and that too both of them werc urt er the influence

ol alcohol and toddy respectively. Because, as per ,he evidence ol

PW.7 belore rrhom the accused conf-essed that he ias addicted to

alcohol, developed suspicion against his wile (decc,r,; d1 and when he

intended to har e sex, the deceased resisted him, then [ : smothered her

and killed her. In view of the same, the accuse,l was under the

inf'luence of alcohol and committed the off'ence. BuI hor,r'ever. there

ISno evidence of premeditation, prior planning.preparatron to(l

commit such offence and must have committeci rn the spur of

morlrent. At the highest, it can be said that thc i:cLrscd had the

knowledge that his act was tikely to cause death. )Lrt there is no

material to cstablish the requisite intention as cor 1 :nrplated under

Section - 300 ol IPC.

'fherefore.

the case would tall vithin the ambit

ol' culpable homicide not arnounting to rnurrl r'. In these

circurnstances. the olfence would be punishable unc t l Scction - i04

ll

kL...r & BRi!,1tt.J

( rl A No ll16 of20lE

Part II of IPC, as the act was done with the knowledge that it was

likely to cause death, but without an intention to cause death or such

bodily injury as is likety ro cause dearh.

34. "Culpable Homicide', is a genus and.,murder,,is its species

and all "murders" are "culpable homicides, but a[

,,culpable

homicides" are not "murders" as held by the Apex Court in Rampat

Singh v. State of uttar pradeshr. 'r-he

intention of the accused must

be judged not in the light of acrual circumsrances, but in the light of

what is supposed to be thc circumsrences.

-fhere

is nothing on r.ecord

to suggest that the accused had corne and prepared to commit

the offence or there was premeditation for commission of offence.

' 35. Section - 702 of IpC is irnportant in many ways. persons

accused of murder are tried under this section only. Further, if in case,

an accused of murder is lound guilty of an offence, Section _ 302

provides tbr punishrnent to such oft-enders. It states that whoever

commits murder shall be punished with either life iniprisonment or

death (depending on the gravity of the murder) along with fine. The

primary point of consideration for the Court in matters relating to

murder is the intent and purpose ol the accused. That is why, it is

(10 r2) 8 scc 289

)

,l Ll. rJIl\ll(-.r

rl , r il.lrj ol_201E

necessary that the objcct and intention of the accLr-.:d is proved in

cases under thrs section.

'lhe

rcquiled materials fir" rnurdcr irrclude

intention (must be intendcd to cause death), cause o1' I :ath (thc act has

to be done r.i,ith the knowledge that the act may ( i r se the death of

another and bodily injury (there must be intent to c:r rse such bodily

injury as is likelr to causc death).

i6. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu2 the Apt: Courr held as

under

"Ol

course. rve have to distinguish hct

rnoti e . intcntion and knowledge. Mor i ,

sunrctlrins r\,hich prornpts a man to Ii'r'r'

intcntion and knowledge is an arvarencss ,r

c(rn\cquenccs rrf (he act. ln rnanl cases ir,l '

and knowledge mergc into each other and r

tlte surnc thing rnore or lcss and intcntion ( i

prcsurned from knorvledge. The demarcatin r

bctu'cen linsrvlcdge and intention is no dorrl,t

but it is not dilficult to perceive that thel' cr r

di Utrcnt things. Iivcn in some English dcci:

thc thrcc idcas are uscd interchangeably anr

has lcrl to a certain arnount olconlusion."

\'Cen

' l\

an

thc

tion

)ean

rbc

I inc

thin

n otc

( )ll s.

.his

AtR 19._i6 SC "138

-Ij

24

II,.I & BRIIR.]

Crl A No.li16 ot l0l8

37. It requires ro be borne in rnind that the t€sr suggested in the

aloresaid decision and the fact that the legislature has used two

different terminologies,

,intent,

and

,knowledge,

and separate

punishments are provided lor an act cornrnitted with an intent to cause

bodily inlury which is likely to cause death and for an act committed

with a knorvledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to

cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it i'ould be unsafe

to treat 'intent' and 'knowredge' in equal terms. They ar.e not difrerent

things. Knowledge would be one of thc circumstances to be taken into

consideration while determining or i,G.ring tl-re r.equisite intent.

where the cvidence would not discrose that there was any intention to

cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had

knowledge that his acts were Iikely to cause death, the accused can be

held guitty under Section - 304 part-[

of lpc. It is in this background

that the expression used in IpC namely

.,intcntion,,

and

,,knowledge,,

has to be seen as there being a thin li^e of distinction between these

trvo expressions. The act to constitute rnurder. if in given facts and

circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section - 300 are

not satisfied and such act is one ol'extrerne recklessness. it would not

attract the said Section. In o.der to b.ing a case within part III of

\

\

l5

tit-.j & ltR\llt.J

:rl A l\o lli6 ol20l8

Section - 300 o1'IPC, it must be proved that there i s an intention to

inflict that par.ricular bodily injury which in the or iinary course of

nature was sultlcient to cause deat.h. In other wortlr

"

that the injury

found to be prcsent was the injury that was intended ,, be inflicted.

i8. The Apex Courl in Pulicherla Nagarrr u (a) Nagaraja

Reddy r,. State of Andhra Pradeshr, held as under

'" rercfbrc. the courl should procced to deci,

pir otal question of intention, with care

cautiou. as that will decide whethcr the ca: r

undcr Section 302 or i04 Part I or 304 [',

Man petty or insignificant matters - pluckin

fiuit. strafing ol cattlc, quarrel ol chi

utterance ol'a rude word or even an objectic

glance. may lead to altercations and group o

culurinating in deaths. Usual motives Iike rer

erced..jcalousv or suspicion rnay be totallr z

ilr

'trrlt

eascs. [here rnal be no intentiorr.

rnar bc no premeditation. [n fact, there rna

er cn be crirninality. At the other end .t

spccLrurn. there rnay be cases of murder *'h :

accrLsed attenrpts to avoid the penalty lbr n

bv attcmpting to pu1 lbrth a case that there

1\

intention Lo cause death. It is lor the co r

ensure that the cases of murder punishable

€l the

and

lalls

rt tl.

: of a

drcn.

rable

rshes

.rnge.

tsent

'hcrc

'nol

'

thc

c the

rrder

IS NO

t:; [o

rndcr

j

AIR 1006 SC l0l(l

26

(I .] & BRMR.J

trl No ll lil ol20l8

Section 302, arc noI converted into oft'ences

punishable under Scction i04 Part lil[. or cases of

culpable hornicide not amounting to rnurder. are

treated as murder punishable under Scction j02.

The intention to cause death can be 16 gathered

gencrallr liom a cornbinalion of a lerr or ser eral

ol the following, alnong other, circumstances: (i)

nature of thc weapon used; (ii) rvhether the weapon

rras carried by the accused or was picked up tiorn

the spot: (iii) whcther the blo,,v is aimed at a viral

part ol the bodl; (iv) the amounr of lorce

employed in causing injuri'; (v) whether the act

rvas in the course of sudden quarrcl or sudden fight

or lree lor atl fight; (vi) whcther thc incident

occurs bv chance or whether there was any

premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior

enmity or r.l,hether the deceased was a stranger;

(viii) w,hether there was any grave and suddcn

provocation. and il so, the cause lor such

provocation; (ix) whether it rvas in the heat of

passion: (x) whether thc person intlicting thc

injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a

cruel and unusual manner; (xi) rvhether the

accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The

above list of circumstances is, of oourse, not

exhaustive and there may be several other special

circumstanccs with rcference to individual cases

rtliich rna., throri tight on the question o['

intention. Be that as it rnay.,'

27

l. t..i & BR\'lR,l

'1 A No 1316 of20l8

-i9. The Apex Court in Anbazhagan v. The St rte represented

by the lnspector of Policel, held as under

-'60-

Fcw, ilnportant principles of law disc,:r rible

fiom the aforcsaid discussion may be sumnr d up

thtr>.

( I ) When the court is contionted rvith thc qu:

u,hat ol'f'ence the accused could be said tr,

comuritted. the true tcst is to find out thc inli:

or knorr ledge ol the accused in doing the act

intention or knorvledge lvas such as is descrit

Cllauses (t) to (a) oiSection 300 olthe lPC. I

u,ill lre rnurdcr even though only a single I

u'as causcd.

'lo

illustratc: 'A' is bound harr,

foot. B' corncs and placing his revolver i

1

the head ol'A'. shoots 'A'

in his head killirrl

instantaneousll. I{ere, thore will be no diffic,r

holding that the intcntion ol'B' in shootirr,

u'as to kill him. though only singlc in-juri

caused. The case would, therefbre. be ol rr

falling rvithin Clause ( I) ol'Section 300 ol thr

Taking anothcr instance. 'B' sncaks into tlr,

roonr ol'his enernv 'A'rvhile

the latter is asl :

his bcd. Taking airn at the left chest of

'1.

lorcibly plungcs a srvord in the lelt chesl .)

and runs awav. 'A' dies shortll thereafle'

injulr lo'A'uas fbund to bc sulficient

Iron,

have

rtion

{ the

:d in

e act

lrury

and

ainst

him

ty in

was

rrder

IPC.

bed

pon

'B'

fhc

r2l

2023 SCC On t.ine S('857

)a

IiI-J&BRMRI

Crl A No ill6 ol20l8

ordinary course ol nature to cause death. There

nray be no difliculty in holding that

.8.

intentionally inflictod the parlicular injury foun<i to

hc caused and that the said injury was obiectively

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. fhis rvould hring the act of

-B'

rvithin

Clause (3) of Section 300 of rhe IpC and rendcr

him guiltl. of the oifence of murder although only

single injuri, was caused.

(2) E,ven rvhen thc intention or know.lcdge oi thc

accused rna1, fall tithin Clauses (l) to (4) ol

Section 300 of the IPC, thc act of the accused

rt'hich r.vould othenvisc bc ururder, will be taken

out ol thc purvieu, ol rnurder. if the accused's case

attracts an-\. one o{' the five cxceptions enurnerated

in that section. In thc event ol the case falling

s'ithin an), ol those exceptions. the offence would

be culpable homicidc not amounting to murder.

ialling rvithin Part I of Section 304 ol thc IpC. if

the case of the accused is suoh as to lall within

Clauses ( l) to (3) of Secrion 300 ol the IpC. It

u.ould be ofl-ence under Parl II of Section 304 if

thc case is such as ro fall within Clause (4) of

Scction J00 o[ the [[,C. Again, the intention or

knorvledge of the accused ma1, be such that only

2nd or 3rd part ol Section 299 ol the tpC, may be

attracted but not anv ol the clauses of Section 300

ol the IPC. ln that siruation also. thc off'ence w,ould

29

bc culpable honricidc not amourlting [o l

under Section 104 of the lPC. [t u'ould t

ollcncc under Part I of that section, il the cas

w ithin 2nd part of Scction 299, r,'hile it u,o r

an ol-l-ence under l)art ol Scction 104 if thc

lull rr ithin 3rd part ,,l scction 299 olthe [Pr

(3) I'o put it in other ivords, if the act

(

accused person fal[s rvithin thc first trvo claL s

cascs ol culpable hornicidc as describcd in Sc

299 ot'the IPC it is 22 punishable under thc

part of Scction 304. If , hor,r,ever, it fal[s rvit[ i

third clause, it is punishable under the secorr

of Section 304- In elt'ect. therefbre. the first

1r

this section u ould appll r.vhen there is

1

intcnlion.' whereas l.he second pa( would

whcn there is no such intcntion, but there is

1

knou ledgc' .

(4) I:.r'en il- single in jurv is inUicted. il'

pa(icular injun' r.vas intcnded, and ob.jective

.

in jun' r.r,as suflicipnt in the ordinary cou't

nature to cause death, the requirernents of (i

3rdl-r to Section i00 ol- thc [PC- are fulfilltr

the o lf'ence would be rnurdcr.

(5) Section 30.1 of the IPC rvill appll' rr

lollouing classes olcascs: (i) rvhcn the cas:

under onc or the other of thc clauses of Sc

i00. but it is covercd bl one of the excepri r

that Scetion. (ii) rrlrcn th. iniur causcd i. r

iL_.J & flR\1R..i

rl

^

No ll16 of20lE

rlder

ian

fatt

cr be

(riISe

lan

rs of

't.ion

ll rst

r the

llart

rt of

u ilt1,

pptv

uilt1,

,hat

that

:of

ausc

rnd

the

falls

't ion

l:i to

)t- ol

i0

KL.] & BRMR.]

Crl A. No.lli6 of 20t 8

the higher degree of Iikelihoocl which is covered

bl thc cxprcssion 'sufficient

in the ordinary course

ol nature to cause death, but is ol a lou,er degree

of likelihood which is gcncrally spoken of as an

injury'like11, to cause death'and l.he case does not

fall under Clause (2) of Seoion 300 of the IpC.

( iii ) w'hen the act is done u irh the knowledge rhat

dcath is likely to ensue but rvithout intention to

cause death or an iniury likelv to cause death.

To put it rnorc succinctly. thc differencc between

thc t\,o parts of Scction j04 of the IpC is that

under the [irst part. the crime of murder is first

established and the accused is then given the

benefit of one ol the cxceptions to Section 300 of

the IPC. rvhilc under the sccond part, the crime of

rrurder is never established at all. Therefore. for

the purpose ol holding an accused guilty of 23 the

ot-[ence punishable under the second part of

Section 30,1 of thc tlrC. the accused need not bring

his case uithin one of the cxceptions to Section

100 of the It,C.

(6) The rvord '[ikcl1" means probably and it is

distinguished [iom rnore 'possibly'. When chances

ol- happcning arc creu or greater than its not

happenine. e ma!. sa-v that the thing will

'probabll'' happen'. In r-eachin,e the conclusion, the

court has to place itsell' in the situation of the

accuscd and then.iudge rvhcther the accused had

the knowledge that b) the act he was Ir[ r v to

cause dcath.

3l

(7) the distinction betri ccn culpable hor

(Scction 299 ol'thc IPC) and rnurder (Sccti,)

of thc IPC) has always to he carefully bc r

mind while dealing r.r'ith a charge under !,i

302 ol the II']C. Under thc category of Lrr I

hornicides, both. the cases ol culpable hor

amounting to rnurder and those not anroLur i

murder w'ould lall. Culpablc homicidc i:

murder when the case is brought rvithin tl,r

exceptions to Section 300 of the [PC. I]ur.

though rrone olthe said tive exceptions arc pl,

or prima lacie establishcd on the evider r

record. the prosecution lnust still be required

the law to bring the case under any of the

clauscs of Section 300 of' the [PC to susrr i

charge of murder. lf thc prosccution li i

discharge this onus in cstablishing an)' one (

four clauses ol Section i00 of the IPC, n r

lstly to 4thly, the chargc ol murdcr u,oukl n

made out and the case rnay be one of cL I

homicide not amounting to rnurder as dcsc

under SecLion 299 of the IPC.

l.r..r & BR\lR.1

'l ^

No ll16nl 2018

i,:ide

i00

rr: in

,rtion

rvlul

ir.:idc

rs, to

not

five

even

lricd

ron

nder

lbur

r Lhc

ito

I thc

rcly,

)l- be

,able

ibccl

(8) The court must address itsclf to the ques i)n of

mens rea. If Clause thirdll ol Section 300 i' r, bc

applicd, the assailant 2;1 rnust intend thc ptrrt r.rlar

injurl. intlicted on thc deccased.

-l

his ingrr licnt

l2

KL,I & I]RMR.J

Crl A No Jll6 ot20lE

-\

could rarcl,v be proved bv direct cvidence.

Inerritabh. it is a utatter of inl-erence to be drau,n

fiorn the proved circumstances of the casc. The

court lrusI nccessarill., have regard to the nature ol

the weapon used, part ol thc body injured, extent

ol the injurr. dcgrcc of lorce uscd in causing the

inj ury, the manne r of attack. the circumstanccs

preccding aud attendant on thc attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not thc only intention l.hat

ntakes a culgratrlc homicide a murder. The intention

[o cause injurv or injuries sufficicnt in the ordinary

cause ol naturc to cause death also makes a

culpablc homicidc a rrurder il'death has actually

been caused and intcntion to cause such injury or

injuries is to be inf'e rred lrom the act or acts

rcsulting in thc inirrrr or injurie,.

(10) Whcn single injury inflicted by rhe accused

rcsults in the dcath ol the victirn. no inference, as a

gcneral principle. can be drau'n that the accused

did not har c the inlcntion to causc thc death or that

particular injury wtich resultcd in the dearh of the

victim. Whcthcr an accused had the requircd guilty

intention or not. is a questiou ol fact which has to

bc detennined on the facts of each case_

( t t ) Where the prosecution proves that the accused

had the intention to causc dcath of any person or to

cause bodilr in-ju11, to hirn and thc intendcd injury

is sufficient in the ordinarv coursc of nature to

J-l

l,t-.J & IIR\lR.l

-rl / No 1116 oI20l6

cause death, then. even il he inflicts a sin-eli

,r jury

which results in the death of the victirn. [hc o i:nce

squarell' lalls under Clausc thirdl,v o1'SecLi r 300

olthe IPC unless one o['the exceptions applr,.

( 12) tn determining the question. whctlr r an

accused had guilty intcntion or guiltr kn,, r cdge

in a casc where only a single injury is inflir t d by

him and that injury is sufficient in the o r rnary

course ol nature to causc death. the lact thar t c act

is done without premeditation in a sudden li ht or

quarrel, or that the circurnstanccs justif] tr t the

injurl, rvas accidental or unintentional, or I rt hc

only intendcd a sirnple injury, r.i'ould lead r thc

inference of guilty knorvledge, and the <, iurce

would be one under Section J04 Part I I r I' the

IPC."

40. The Apex Court in a recent judgmcnt in , Ramkumar v.

The State, rep.by Inspectors also reiterated the albr':,ai<I principte.

41. [n State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham' the Apex Court

held as under:

"12. Sentencing for crimes has to be analyzerl l the

touch stone of tfuee tests r,'i2., crime test. crinrir I rcst

and comparative proportionality tcst. Clrirr ( tcst

involves lactors like extent.of planning, clrrlc of

'. Crl.A. No.2006 ol202i. decided on 06.09.2011

o

2019 scc onLine SC 1378

34

KL..ll( BtiMR.J

(il , \o 1116 ol20lS

weapon. modus o['crinle. disposal modus (if any). role

o[ thc accused. anti-social or abhorrcnt charactcr of the

crirnc. statc of Victiln. Crintinal test involves

asscssment ot lactors such as aqc o[' thc criminal.

gcndcr of-the climinal. economic conditions or social

background of the crimina[. ntotivation lor crime,

availabilitl, of del'ensc. state of mind. instigarion by the

deccased or an) onc lionr the deceased group.

adcquately represenlcd in the trial. disagreement bv a

judge in the appeal proccss, repcntance, possibility ol

relorrnation. prior criminal record (not to takc pending

cascs) and anv othcr rclcr.ant tactor (not an crhaustivc

list)'

42. ln the light of the albresaid discussion and the principle laid

down in the above decisions, coming to the case on hand, there is no

evidence of prior planning or preparation.

-l-hc

incident appears to

have occurred in a sudden qual'rcl arising out of suspicion regarding

the wife's rejection to have sexual intercourse with the accused

Further, both of-them were undcr the influencc olalcohol and toddy.

No material shows prior procurcrtrent of rveapon or calculated conduct

prior to the incident. [n such circurnstances, we are of the opinion that

it was a case where an act rvas committedbv theaccused with

knowledge but without intention. Wlren the olf'ence is cornrnitted on

the spur of the moment, it indicates the absence ol premeditation and

)

l5

KL.I & BRI,IR.J

(il . No l116 ol 20l8

Iack ol intention to comrrit rnurder, which is lL .t.ucial lactor in

convefiing the ot-fence lrom Section - 302 oi [pC tc ,,:ction _ 304 part

II of IPC.

-I'he

trial CoLrn did nol consider all tirr: rfbresaid aspects

rvhile imposing lil'e imprisonment on rhe ap;r lant _ accused.

Accordingly, [his Courr while upholding the findi, : ol guilr against

the accused, converted the conviction from Sectior ,. 302 ol IpC to

Section - 304 Parl-ll of IPC and he is sentenced to he imprisonment

fbr the period aheady undergone. The appe[ant her rrn _

accused has

been in jaiI from 06.01.20r7. The.cfore, the Supe .i rr.errclcnr, central

Prison, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, is directed to rei, ase trim. if he is

not required in any other case.

4i. Ihc present Criminal Appeal is accordin6.l allowed in part

in the above tc-rurs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatior r

in this appeal shall stand closed.

il-any. pending

/ITRUE COPY'/

S,N'- 6 V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA /:-iorxr

REGISTRAR /

/.+-

L-/'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1The Vll Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hy lerabad (with records'

if anY)

z ih"'if ,i"t Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad'

3. The Superintendent,

'clni'ar

Prison' Chart' halguda'(by

messenger)

4. The Station House Officer, Chalriaal1g,Dolice

Statir r Hyderabad

special

d

il

i

I

I

I

!

5. Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana'

Hyderabad [OUT]

6 o;; CC to Sri P irabhakar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]

i in" s""*tary, High Co;rt Ld;i Services Gommittee' Hyderabad (Bv

Special Messenger)

B. Two CD CoPies

\qr

t

I

SA/pst

I

o

{

\

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210312026

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.3336 of 2018

ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN PART

|'1Afl 2026 f,}

)t

*

'1l

tri

Il "o

P&r'

Fi-

66le

I

/'

t' :\

,)

,

t