IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE::NANDIKOTKUR
Present: Sri P.Raja Ram, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandikotkur.
Monday, the 19thday of September, 2022.
SESSIONS CASE NO.31 OF 2022
State represented by the the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur P.S.… Complainant - Versus -
1. Shaik Usman Basha, aged 29 years, Son of Ibrahim, Haji Nagar
2. Shaik Akbar Hussain @ Dealer Akbar Hussain, aged 43 years Son of Late S.Gulam Hussain, H.No.6/6, Raja Street,
Both are residents of Nandikotkur Town. … Accused No.1 and 2
This case is coming on 16.9.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of
Sri C.C.V.Ranga Reddy and Sri C.Venkateswarlu, Advocates for the
Accused No.1 and 2, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having perused the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1.The Accused No.1 and 2 arraigned for the offences punishable under
Sections 355 and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2.As per the case of prosecution, the Accused No.1 who is the brother of defacto-complainant/Shaik Shahanaz Banu dishonoured her deceased husband viz., Shaik Abdul Aleem in front of his house by beating him with a footwear on 6.7.2016, at 3-00 P.M. On that, on 8.7.2016, at 4-00 P.M., the father of deceased namely Shaik Khursheed organized a panchayat in
Kaman Mosque of Hazi Nagar in the presence of elders viz., Rafi, Jaffer
Hussain and Hussain Basha and in the said panchayat, both the accused 2 abetted the deceased by saying that the deceased is living even after he is beaten up with a footwear and if has got some shame, he has to commit suicide before tomorrow morning by consuming anything. On that, at about 5-30 P.M., the deceased left the panchayat and consumed poison at old bus stand and came to his house and started vomiting and on enquiry, the deceased revealed that he consumed poison. The deceased was shifted to Community Health Centre, Nandikotkur and later he died on 13.7.2016 while undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital,
Kurnool. Basing on the report of defacto-complainant, a case in Crime
No.82/2016 under Sections 355 and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code of Nandikotkur P.S. was registered and during the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of deceased, postmortem was conducted by the doctor and final opinion was issued opining that the deceased died due to organophosphate, an insecticide poison. On 19.7.2016, the accused were arrested and sent for remand.
On the above grounds, the Sub-Inspector of Police requested to punish the accused according to law.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur took cognizance of offence under Sections 355 and 306 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code against A1 and A2 (PRC No.8/2018). As the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur committed the case to the Sessions Division, Kurnool under Section 209 of
Cr.P.C.
3
4.The Hon’ble Principal District Court, Kurnool after perusal of the material, made over this case to this Court for trial according to law.
5.On the appearance of Accused No. 1 and 2, Charges under Sections 355 and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code were framed against them. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Urdu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.The prosecution got examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 out of 13 listed witnesses and exhibited Exs.P1 to Ex.P23 as well M.Os. 1 and 2.
7. Accused No.1 and 2 were examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence, in their mother tongue Urdu, and having understood the same, they denied the same and pleaded innocence as well stated that they have no defence evidence. So defence evidence is closed.
8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.
9.Now, the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused No. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 355 and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code” ?
P O I N T :-
10.Perused the record. As per the case of prosecution, the deceased
Shaik Abdul Aleem, who was the husband of P.W.1/Shaik Shahanaz Banu 4 committed suicide by consuming an insecticide poison due to dishonouring him in public by means of a footwear and thereby abetted its commission by the accused. Whereas, P.W.1 during the course of her chief- examination, did not state anything against the Accused. P.W.1 deposed that, about seven years ago, her husband consumed something and vomited at her house and she shifted her husband to Government
Hospital, Nandikotkur and later, she shifted her husband to Kurnool
Hospital and that, he died after eight days of his treatment and that, A1 and A2 are no way concerned with this case and the police obtained her signature on a white paper in Kurnool Hospital and that, she does not know whether her husband lodged a complaint before police prior to his death or not. Hence, her signature on the statement was marked as
Ex.P1.
11.P.W.2 who is the father of deceased Abdul Aleem deposed that, his elder son suffered from unbearable stomachache and consumed pesticide and came to house and vomited and the same was informed by P.W.1 and they shifted him to hospital and later he died. This P.W.2 also deposed that, A1 and A2 are no way concerned to the death of his deceased son.
Likewise, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are the brothers of deceased also did not depose anything against the accused stating that they does not know the reason for consuming pesticide by his deceased brother. Even, P.Ws.5 and 6 have also stated that they does not know the reason for consuming pesticide by said Aleem and they were not examined by the police at any point of time. The alleged inquest panchayatdars I.e., P.W.7 to P.W.9 also denied about their presence over the inquest held on the dead body of deceased. Hence, the signatures of P.W.7 to P.W.9 on the inquest 5 report were marked as Exs.P11 to 13 respectively. When the main witnesses turned hostile, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Sri Shaik Mohammed Rafi, Dr.V.Rajasekhar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued certificate and final opinion to that effect and Sri P.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the Sub-
Inspector of Police, who laid charge sheet against the accused.
12.The Investigating Officer/Sub-Inspector of Police examined as P.W.10 who deposed that on Ex.P15/complaint of deceased and on receipt of permission from the Court, he registered a case in Crime No.82/2016 and the original First Information Report submitted to the Court is marked as
Ex.P14 and on receipt of death intimation of deceased, he conducted inquest over the dead body of Abdul Aleem which is marked as Ex.P17, recorded the statement of P.W.1 to P.W.3, seized M.O.1.-Baniyan and
M.O.2-Dhothi from the dead body of deceased, sent the dead body to doctor for conducting postmortem examination, sent viscera to RFSL,
Kurnool for analysis, drew Ex.P20 rough sketch at the scene of offence and he also drew Ex.P21 rough sketch at Khamar Maszid, added Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in First Information Report on Ex.P22 alteration memo, subsequently examined P.W.4 to P.W.6 and P.W.1 to
P.W.6 stated before him as in Exs.P2, P5, P7 to P10, he arrested the accused on 19.7.2016, near Shanthi Theatre, Pagidyala Road, Nandikotkur and sent them for remand.
13.The main witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Except the evidence of Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence against the accused to show that the accused assaulted 6 the deceased Shaik Abdul Aleem by footwear inorder to dishonour him, as a result, the deceased committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison.
It appears that the witnesses might have effected compromise with the accused outside the Court and thereby they are not speaking the truth
before this Court. Basing on the hostile evidence, this Court cannot come
to conclusion that the prosecution established the guilt of accused.
14.On careful consideration of overall evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are given benefit of doubt.
15.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 355 and 306 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code and are hereby acquitted under Section 235 (1) of
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused with sureties, shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of September,
2022.
Sd/- Sri P.Raja Ram
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
NANDIKOTKUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1 – Shaik Shahanaz Banu- None -
P.W.2 – Shaik Kurshid Akbar 7
P.W.3 – Shaik Abdul Jaleel
P.W.4 – Shaik Mahaboob
P.W.5 – Jaffer Hussain
P.W.6 – Shaik Hussain Basha
P.W.7 – M.Chinna Obulesh
P.W.8 – Syed Shakeel Ahammed
P.W.9 – Shaik Abdul Rahiman
P.W.10 – S.Lakshmi Narayana
Exhibits marked For Prosecution:-
Ex.P1 – Signature of P.W.1 on statement dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P2 – Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 given before police.
Ex.P3 - Signature of P.W.1 on the summons served by police dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P4 – Signature of P.W.2 on the summons dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P5 – Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 given before police.
Ex.P6 – Signature of P.W.3 on the summons dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P7 – Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 given before police.
Ex.P8 – Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 given before police.
Ex.P9 – Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 given before police.
Ex.P10 – Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 given before police.
Ex.P11 – Signature of P.W.7 on the inquest report dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P12 – Signature of P.W.8 on the inquest report dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P13 – Signature of P.W.9 on the inquest report dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P14 – First Information Report in Crime No.82/2016 dated 11.7.2016 of
Nandikotkur P.S.
Ex.P15 – Complaint of deceased Shaik Abdul Aleem dated 6.7.2016.
Ex.P16 – Statement of P.W.1 recorded on 13.7.2016.
Ex.P17 – Inquest report dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P18 – Postmortem report, dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P19 – Report/Opinion of APFSL, Hyderabad, dated 6.12.2016.
Ex.P20 - Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P21 – Rough sketch drawn at Khamar Masjid.
Ex.P22 – Alteration memo dated 13.7.2016.
Ex.P23 – Final opinion/report of Dr.V.Raja Sekhar dated 13.6.2018.
8
For Defence:
Nil
Material Objects For Prosecution :-
M.O.1 – Baniyan of deceased.
M.O.2 – Dhothi of deceased.
For Defence :- Nil
Sd/- Sri P.Raja Ram
ASJ, NDK.
Copy submitted to:
1.The Honourable Registrar (Judl.), High Court of A.P., Nelapadu, Amaravati through the Honourable Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
2.The Honourable Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
3.The Director of Prosecution, D.No.24-19-12/A, Beside Sharada College, B.R.T.S.Road, Durgapuram, Vijayawada-520 003.
Copy to :
1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Nandikotkur.