Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi
I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge
HYD, Criminal Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana
Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi, I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, is posted at HYD, Criminal Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 7 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, CRLA cases.
Featured Judgments
Page 1 of 33
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
SESSIONS JUDGE: HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. P.V.P.Lalitha Siva Jyothi, II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
SESSIONS CASE NO.415 OF 2014
(in PRC No. 50 of 2014)
Committed by Sri V. Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy, VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Crime Number and Police Station142 of 2014 P.S., Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. Name &description of the Mohd Laiq @ Abdullah, S/o. Late accusedMohd. Shamshiruddin, Aged about 34 years, R/o. H.No. 18-7-423/A/712, First Floor, Near Lakdi Ki Taal, Aman Nagar-B, Talabkatta, Bhavani Nagar.
Name and description of the com-The State represented by Inspector plainantof Police, P.S. Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. Prosecution conducted bySri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Addl. Public Prosecutor. Accused defended bySri. E. Radhakrishna Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused. Offence chargedUnder Sections 302,498-A of IPC Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Finding of the CourtFound guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC. ResultIn the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted as per the provisions under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Heard the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence. Taking the plea of the accused into consideration and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, I find that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and shall pay a fine amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of (2) two months for the offence
Page 2 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (6) Six Months and shall pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprison- ment for a period of (1) one month for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period already undergone by the accused shall be given set- off, as per provisions of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.
This case is coming on 04.01.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State/Complainant and of Sri E. Radhakrishna, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhavani
Nagar, Hyderabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.142 of 2014 of P.S.
Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad registered against the Accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The case of the prosecution, against the accused in brief is that about 18 years back, the victim/LW-1’s/Smt. Shahenaaz Begum marriage was occurred with the accused and they blessed with four children namely
Asiya Begum, Mohd Siraj, Asra Begum and Md. Rahman and for the last 3 months they are residing in first floor of the house of LW-4/Tahara Begum and LW-5/Mohd.Shakeel Ahmed Talabkatta, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad as tenants and LW-1/Shahenaaz Begum used to work in a Bangle making unit and some times she brings material and attend the bangles making work of that unit at her residence and her children that is LW-2/Mohd Siraj and
LW-3/Kum.Asiya are studying 7th class and LW6/Putli Begum is the mother
Page 3 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 of the victim and LW-2 used to work in LW-11/Mohammed Haji vegetable shop, after completion of school and the accused earlier worked in a pan shop and for the past one year he is not doing any work and harassing,
LW-1 with intention to perform second marriage and earlier on 24.11.2013 the accused bet the victim/LW-1 and poured kerosene on her with intention to kill her and at that time, the victim escaped and went along with her mother/LW6 to the hospital of LW19/Dr. Sameena and got treatment and later they compromised the issue and lived together along with their children and as it was Ramzan month on 24.07.2014 LW11 gave Rs.500/- to LW2 to purchase new clothes Ramzan festival and LW-2 gave the said amount to LW-1/victim/mother and the accused with an intention to take the said amount of Rs.500/- for his expenses, he quarreled with LW-1 in the night on 25.07.2014 at about 3 AM., the victim woke up and while she was preparing food, the accused abused the victim and suddenly picked up kerosene tin and poured kerosene on her and lit fire and at that time LW-2 returned from the Namaz witnessed the same and immediately, he tried to extinguish the flames with the bed sheet and with the burn injuries the victim made hue and cry and on hearing the same LW-3 woke up and found them mother/victim was burning in and LW-10/Kum. Asra Begum rushed and informed the same to LW-4/Smt. Thahara Begum and LW5/Mohd.
Shakeel Ahmed and they came and rescued and victim and shifted her to
Osmania General Hospital for medical treatment in an auto and while under going treatment, LW-1/victim succumbed to burn injuries in the hospital on 27.07.2014 at 03.30 AM., and basing on the statement given by the victim/LW-1, to the Sub-Inspector of Police/LW-24/K.Satish Reddy on 25.07.2014 at about 9.35 AM., LW-26/P.Shankar/Addl. Inspector of Police,
Bhavani Nagar PS., registered a case in Crime No. 142/2014 U/s. 307, 498
IPC and entrusted CD file to LW-25/N.Srishylam, Sub-Inspector of Police and sent FIR to all the concerned and during the course of investigation LW-25
Page 4 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 deputed LW-23/Venugopal, Police Constable to scene of offence with instructions to protect the scene and visited the Osmania General Hospital, and recorded the statement of LW-1/Victim Smt. Shahenaaz Begum and her son LW-2/Mohd. Siraj and thereafter he visited scene of offence
Talabkatta, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad, and recorded the statements of
LW-3 and LW-4 and secured the presence of mediators LWs. 13 and 14 i.e.,
Ghouse Pasha and Mohd. Jabbar Khan, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in presence of them and during the panchanama seized one plastic tin with some kerosene, small burnt cloth pieces, one partially burnt bed sheet, matchbox from the scene, the same being deposited in the Hon’ble court along with charge sheet and took the photographs of the scene with the help of LW-17/Syed Sadak and on that requisition the learned LW-18/Smt. Rajini, Hon’ble V Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad recorded the Dying Declaration of
LW-1 at Osmania General Hospital on 25.07.2014 and then summoned the eye witness LW-5 to Police Station examined and recorded his detailed statement and while the investigation was in progress on 27.07.2014 at 0900 hrs received a Telephonic message from Osmania General Hospital, that burns injured woman Smt. Shahenaaz Begum was succumbed while under going treatment at 03.30 hrs on 27.07.2014 and on receipt of the above message by LW-26 who was in charge of the Police Station, made alteration of section of law from under Sections 307, 498-A IPC to 302, 498-A IPC and sent the express section alteration memos to all concerned and thereafter the LW-26 proceeded to mortuary Osmania General
Hospital, he collected death summary of deceased, where examined and recorded the statements of blood relatives of the deceased LWs-6 to 9 i.e.,
Smt. Putli Begum, Mohd, Jahangir, Mohd. Zaker and Smt. Shareefa Begum and collected the medical prescription of Sameena Hospital, Bhavani
Nagar, where the victim got treatment on 24.11.2013, when her husband
Page 5 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 beaten and poured kerosene with intention to kill her and secured the presence of mediators LWs-15 and 16 i.e., Smt. Kanees Fathima and Mohd.
Ameer, conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of them and took the photographs of the dead body and after completion of inquest the dead body sent for Post Mortem Examination, where LW-22/K.V. Ramesh, Asst. Professor, Osmania General Hospital conducted Post Mortem Examination over the death due to BURNS and thereafter, the dead body handed over to LW-7/Mohd. Jahangir for conducting last rites and later LW-27/B.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police taken the CD file from LW-26/P.Shankar, Addl. Inspector of Police and verified the investigation of LW-25 and LW26, visited the scene of offence, caused enquiries and recorded the statement of daughter of the deceased
LW-10 and then visited the vegetable shop, where LW-2 worked, examined and recorded the statement of the owner of the vegetable shop LW-11 and thereafter, summoned and recorded the statement of LW-12/Mohd. Akram, who shifted the victim to Osmani General Hospital by his auto for medical treatment and deputed ID men for accused and while the investigation was in progress, on reliable information LW-27 along with LWs. 23 and 24 apprehended the accused at his Sister/Naseem Begum’s house on 30.07.2014 at 12:00 hours, brought to Police Station and on interrogation he admitted his guilt and he arrested him and produced before the court for judicial remand and later on the requisition learned IX Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the statements of LWs. 2, 3 and 10 under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus the accused person Mohd. Laiq @ Abdullah, S/o
Late. Mohd. Shamshiruddin, committed an offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302 IPC. Hence the charge.
Page 6 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
3.This case was taken on file as P.R.C. No.50 of 2014 by learned
VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for offences under
Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C. against the Accused.
4.On appearance of Accused, all the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C by the committal Court. The learned VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad having found prima-facie case against the Accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C. and as the offence under
Section 302 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions
Court, Hyderabad by following the due procedure contemplated under
Section 209 Cr.P.C.
5.The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has taken the case on file as S.C.No. 415 of 2014 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law. Accused is in judicial custody.
6.On appearance of Accused before this Court, the learned
Additional Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were
heard u/Sec. 226 of Cr.P.C. and on considering the material on record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C.
are framed against the Accused and the same are read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 16 out of 27 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 andMOs.1 to 4, the details of which are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.
Page 7 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
8.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence reflected in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf.
9.Heard arguments of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. E. Radhakrishna, Legal Aid
Counsel for Accused.
10.The point that arises for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?
POINT:
11.To prove the offence under Section 498-A, 302 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to establish that the accused harassed the deceased both physically and mentallywith an intention to contact 2nd marriage and by demanding money and he treated her with cruelty and when she was at- tending cooking in the early hours on 25.07.2014 in the month ofRamzan, the accused demanded her for giving Rs.500/- and poured kerosene on her and lit fire with an intention to kill her and caused the death of the de- ceased/Shahenaaz Begum beyond all reasonable doubt.
12.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and deceased/Shahenaaz Begum was staying in the house of the PW-1 as tenants, PW-2 is the son and PW-3, LW-10/Asra Begum are the daughters and PW-4 is the mother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and PW-5 is the elder brother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and about 6 years back on the day of Ramzan Festival, PW-6 gave Rs.500/- to PW-2 for
Page 8 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 purchase of cloths and PW-2 gave the said amount to his mother/
Shahenaaz Begum/deceased and the accused quarrelled with the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum asking for the said amount of Rs.500/- and on 25.07.2014 in Ramzan month, when the deceased was attending cooking, the accused demanded her for giving Rs.500/- and quarrelled with her and poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire and at that time Pws. 2, 3 and LW-3/Asra Begum and younger brother of PW-2 namely Md. Rehman were present and they were sleeping and PW-2 woke up at about 4:30 am on hearing the syran “on the eve of Ramzan” and found the accused was quarreling with the deceased on the issue of Rs.500/- and poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased and PW-2 covered the body of the deceased with blanket and they all woke up the house owner/LW-4 and PW-1 and shifted the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in an auto to Osmania General
Hospital, Hyderabad and on 25.7.2014 at 06.05 hours PW-12 received telephonic message from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad informing him that one woman by name Shahenaaz Begum received burn injuries and admitted in Accute Burn Cases Ward and on receipt of the message,
PW-12 proceeded to Osmania Hospital and identified the said injured by
Osmania General Hospital Staff in ABC Ward and during the course of investigation, he assisted PW-13 and on instructions of PW-15, PW-13 along with PW-12 proceeded to Osmania General Hospital and recorded the statement of Shahenaaz Begum and PW-2 and later, he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW-8 and LW-14/Md. Jabbar Khan and observed the scene of offence and drafted the scene of observation cum seizure panchanama and seized plastic tin with kerosene, small burnt cloth piece, one partially burnt bed sheet i.e., Mos. 1 to 4 and with the help of PW-9 he got photographed the scene of offence and also drafted rough sketch scene of offence and PW-12, PW-13 gave Ex.P7 the statement of the victim/Shahenaaz Begum to PW-15 and basing on the said statement,
Page 9 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 he registered a case in Crime No. 142 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A of IPC and issued Ex.P9/FIR and sent copies to all the concerned and on 27.07.2014 at about 9:00 am, he received information from the Osmania General Hospital that the victim/Shahenaaz
Begum was succumbed to burn injuries while undergoing treatment and then he proceeded to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad by altering the Section of Law from 307, 498-A of IPC to 302, 498-A of IPC and sent
Ex.P10/alteration memo to all concerned and he also examined and recorded the statement of blood relatives of the deceased i.e., PW4, PW5,
LWs.8 and 9 i.e., Md. Zakir and Shareefa Begum respectively and also collected medical prescription from the Sameena Maternity Nursing Home,
Talabkatta, Hyderabad relating to the deceased and later he secured the panch witnesses namely PW7 and LW16/Ameer and in their presence, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and took photographs of the dead body of the deceased/Shahanaz Begum and after completion of inquest, he handed over the dead body for Post Mortem Examination
Report and thereafter, he handed over the dead body of the deceased to
PW5, the brother of deceased for conducting last rites and handed over the
CD File to PW-16/Asst. Commissioner of Police for further investigation and he verified the investigation done by him, and PW13 and found it on proper lines and took up the investigation and he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of LW10/Asra Begum and later he visited the vegetable shop of LW11 and secured the presence of
LW12/Akram and examined and recorded the statements of LWs.11 and 12 and he made efforts by deputing his subordinate to apprehend the accused person and on reliable information he along with PWs.12 and 13 visited the house of the Sister of the accused and arrested him and produced before the court and that he filed a requisition before the learned
IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and got recorded the
Page 10 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of LWs.2, 3 and 10 by the learned Magistrate and also examined and recorded the statement of PW10, who treated the deceased/Shehnaz Begum and also examined and recorded the statement of PW9 and he collected certified copies of the statements recorded u/Sec.
164 Cr.P.C., Dying Declaration and deposited the case property before the court and after collecting all the relevant documents and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
13.To prove the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C., the prosecution altogether got examined 16 witnesses out of 27 listed witnesses and got markedExs.P1 to P16 and MOs. 1 to 4.
14.The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution are
Exs.P.1 to P11. Ex.P.1 is the Scene of offence observation and seizure panchanama, dated 25.07.2014. Ex.P.2 is the Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.3 is the Consists of 6 photographs taken on the dead body of deceased. Ex.P.4 is the Medical Prescription dated 24.11.2013 of
Shahanaz Begum. Ex.P.5 is the Requisition dated 25.07.2014 received by
PW11 from Police Bhavani Nagar. Ex.P.6 is the Dying Declaration of the deceased/Shahanaz Begum. Ex.P.7 is the Statement of Shahanaz Begum,
W/o. Mohammed Laiq, Age 34 years, R/o. Aman Nagar-B, Talabkatta,
Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. Ex.P.8 is the Copy of Case Sheet of the deceased/LW1/victim dated 25.07.2014. Ex.P.9 is the FIR, dated 25.07.2014. Ex.P10 is the Alteration Memo dated nil. Ex.P11 is the
Inquest dated 27.07.2014. Ex.P.12 is the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum, dated 27.07.2014.. Ex.P.13 is the
Requisition filed before the learned IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, dated 04.08.2014. Exs.P.14 to P.16 are the Sec. 164 Cr.P.C.
Statements of the PW2, PW3 and LW.10/Asra Begum, dated 08.08.2014.
Page 11 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
MO-1 is the Plastic tin (Now there is no kerosene), MO-2 is the Small burnt cloth pieces, MO-3 is the Partially burnt bed sheet and MO-4 is the Match box.
15.To establish the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 of I.P.C. the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 16. PW.1 is the eye witness, PW-2 is the son, PW-3 is the daughter, PW-4 is the mother and
PW-5 is elder brother of the deceased/Shehnaz Begum , PW-6 is the owner of PW-2, PW-7 is the panch witness for Inquest, PW-8 is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW-9 is the photographer, PW-10 is the circumstantial witness, PW-11 is the learned Magistrate who recorded the Dying
Declaration of the victim/deceased/Shehnaz Begum, PW-14 is the Medical
Officer who treated the victim/deceased/Shehnaz Begum, PWs. 12, 13, 15 and 16 are the Investigating Officers.
16.As seen from the record that the defacto complainant/LW-1/vic- tim/ Shehnaz Begum/deceased was died.
17.The evidence of PW-1 discloses that he is running a medical shop and he know the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and the husband of deceased i.e., accused herein and stated that the accused and the deceased used to stay in their house as tenants and on 25.07.2014 at 3.00 am (midnight) he came to his house and PW-3 came to his house and informed him that his mother Shahenaaz Begum caught fire and immediately, he went to the portion where deceased and accused are residing and found her lying and Shahenaaz Begum informed him that the accused set fire to her by pouring kerosene and he called LW-12/Md Akram who is staying nearer to his house and sent her in an auto to hospital and later Shahenaz Begum was died in the hospital.
Page 12 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
18.The evidence of PW-2 discloses that the deceased/Shehnaz
Begum is his mother and the accused is his father and Asiya(LW-3) is his
Sister and 6 years back on the day of Ramzan Festival, his owner/PW6 gave him Rs.500/- for purchase of clothes and he gave the said amount to his mother (deceased) and the accused quarreled with deceased asking for
Rs.500/- and the accused poured kerosene on deceased and set fire to his mother (deceased) and himself, PW3, LW10/Asra Begum and his younger brother by name Mohd. Rehman were present at the time of incident and
PW-3, LW10 and his younger brother by name Mohd. Rehman are sleeping at that time and at about 4.30 AM, on hearing syren he woke up on the eve of Ramzan and found the accused quarreling with deceased on the issue of
Rs.500/- and he covered the body of deceased with blanket and PW3,
LW10 and his younger brother Mohd. Rehman also woke up and they all woke up the house owner LW4 and PW1 and he took his mother (deceased) to Osmania General Hospital in an auto and deceased was treated in
Osmania General Hospital and later she was died.
19.The evidence of PW-3 discloses that she is a teacher and accused is her father and Shahnaaz Begum (Deceased) was her mother and PW-2 is her younger brother and on 25.06.2014 in Ramzan month between 04.00 and 05.00 pm, accused set fire to deceased by pouring kerosene on her body. She further deposed that LW-11/Mohd. Haji is the owner of PW2 under whom PW2 is working and LW11 gave Rs.500/- to PW- 2 on the eve of Ramzan Festival to purchase clothes and PW2 gave the said amount to deceased and the accused asked the deceased to give that amount but deceased refused to give that amount and on that issue quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. She further deposed that they all slept in the house, and on hearing cries of deceased, she woke up and noticed that deceased was in flames and PW-2 placed
Page 13 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 blanket on the body of deceased and when she asked the deceased, she told that the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her and deceased was taken to Osmania General Hospital in an auto and on 27.07.2014 her mother was died in Osmania General Hospital.
20.The evidence of PW-4 discloses that the accused is her son-in- law and Shahnaaz Begum (deceased) is her daughter and deceased and the accused were residing in Talabkatta. She deposed that about 6/7 years back while she was in her house in Sultan Shahi, she came to know that her daughter (Shahnaaz Begum) was set fire and admitted in Osmania
General Hospital and then she along with her sons and daughter went to
OGH and found the deceased with burn injuries and the deceased informed her that her husband (accused) set fire by pouring kerosene on her body and after two days, her daughter was died in Osmania General Hospital.
21. The evidence of PW5 discloses that the accused and deceased are residing in Talabkatta and on 25.07.2014 at about 05.00 AM, PW-3 and
LW-10 came running to his house and informed him that the accused set fire to the deceased on the issue of Rs.500/- and that Rs.500/- was given by the owner of PW-2 and when deceased refused to give that amount to accused and they also informed him that during previous night accused quarreled with the deceased and on early hours, the accused set fire to deceased by pouring kerosene and himself and his wife went to house of deceased but they are informed that deceased was taken to Osmania
General Hospital andthen they went to OGH and the deceased informed him that while she was doing namaz (prayer) in the house, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set fire in the house and after 2 days, deceased was died in Osmania General Hospital.
Page 14 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
22.The evidence of PW6 discloses that he is running a vegetables shop by name Mashu Vegetables Shop Situated at Talabkatta, Bhavani
Nagar, Hyderabad for the last 25 years and he know PW-2 and he used to work in his shop from 03.00 pm after attending the school for 2 to 3 hours in a day and PW-5, who is maternal uncle of PW-2, kept PW-2 in his shop for the work and in the year 2014, PW-2 worked in his shop for 3 months and during Ramzan period of 2014, he gave Rs.500/- to PW-2 to purchase clothes for festival and for4 days after his giving money, PW2 did not come to the shop and he sent a person to enquire as to what was happened and PW5 informed him that in the house of PW2 somebody was set fire
23.PW7 who is the panch witness to the Inquest did not support the case of the prosecution. But, in the cross-examination she admitted that the police held inquest pver the dead body of the deceased and drafted Inquest Panchanama. PW8 who is the panch witness to the Scene of offence and his evidence discloses that he know Mohd. Jabbar Khan (LW14) and on 25.07.2014 at 11 AM, Police called him and LW14 to Aman
Nagar-B, Talabkatta and Police conducted panchanama and he found match box, kerosene tin, two bed sheets and he can identify the said property and in Telugu panchanama (Ex.P.1) was drafted and he Signed in it. MO1 is
Plastic tin (Now there is no kerosene). MO2 is small burnt cloth pieces.
MO3 is partially burnt bed sheet. MO4 is Match box. Ex. P.1 is the Scene of offence Observation-cum-Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P.2 is the Rought
Sketch of scene of offence, dated 25.07.2014.
24.The evidence of PW9 discloses that he is a photographer by profession and on 26.07.2014, on the request of Police Bhavani Nagar
Constables,he has taken photographs at the said scene of offence and he
Page 15 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 handed over photographs to police and on the next day, he was taken to
Osmania General Hospital where he has taken photographs of female dead body and handed over Ex.P3 (6) Photographs of the dead body to police.
25.The evidence of PW10 discloses that she is working as Director of Sameena Group of Hospitals, Talabkatta, Hyderabad and on 24.11.2013 at 6.50 PM, Shahenaaz Begum W/o. Md. Laiq came to Sameena Hospital,
Talabkatta where she examined her and she stated that her husband poured kerosene on her body and lit fire and she gave first aid to her and prescribed medicines for her and she was treated as out-patient in her hospital and her hospital’s name was Sameena Maternity and Nursing
Home and prescription shown to her is written by her and Ex.P4 is the medical prescription dated 24.011.2013 of Shahenaaz Begum and stated that along with the patient, her mother and brother also came to her hospital
26.The evidence of PW11 discloses that she has been working as
VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and previously she worked as V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and she deposed that on 25.07.2014 at 10 AM, she received a requisition from
Bhavani Nagar Police to record the dying declaration of one Shainaz Begum
W/o. Mohammed Layeeq immediately, she proceeded to Osmania General
Hospital to the Burns Ward and reached there by 10.30 AM and she identified the patient with the help of the duty doctor by name
Dr.E.Mahender and the Doctor certified that patient is conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind to give statement and she posed some preliminary questions to know her condition and she revealed her name as Shainaz and her husband’s name as Mohammed Layeeq and she is resident of
Talabkatta and she asked her whether she is married, she replied yes and
Page 16 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 that she has four children and when she asked her whether she knows where she was, she replied that she is in Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad and her owners brought her to Osmania Hospital and she explained her that she is Magistrate and came to record her statement and she stated that for years together she is the second wife of her husband and the marriage was performed by her brother-in-law and she further stated that her husband is threatening her by pronouncing to perform another marriage in the presence of his relatives and she further stated that in the house her husband, his mother, his four Sisters and four brothers are living and her husband is harassing her and making fun of her that her brother died and scolding her a lot throughout night and harassing her a lot stating that he will leave her and perform another marriage. Ex.P5 is the requisition dated 25.07.2014 received by her from Police Bhavani Nagar and Ex.P6 is the dying declaration of the deceased Shainaz Begum.
27.The evidence of PW14 discloses that he has been working as
Tutor in Plastic Surgery Department, Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad. He further deposed that the complainant/LW1/victim brought to their Hospital by her brother PW2, PW5 and PW7 along with her Sister-in- law namely Nafeeza Begum with burn injuries and LW1/victim told that her husband poured kerosene on her and set ablaze and on examination he found burn injuries on LW1/victim all over the body and she sustained 68% of burn injuries and they gave treatment to her, but she died on 27.07.2014 at about 3.30 AM, due to burn injuries and deceased
LW1/victim was not having any other ailments and they gave only necessary treatment required. Ex.P8 is the copy of Case Sheet of the deceased/LW1/victim dated 25.07.2014.
Page 17 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
28.Pws.12, 13, 15 and 16 are the Investigation Officers and their evidence discloses with regard to the issuance of FIR and investigation.
29.The learned APP submits that the prosecution has clinchingly established the commission of the offence under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC by the accused through the evidence of PW1 to PW6 coupled with Ex. P1 to
P16 & MO1 to 4and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is trust- worthy, believable to bring home the guilt of the accused as per the charges framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused is liable to be convicted.
30.Per contra, the learned Legal Aid Counsel submits that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Secs. 498-A, 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is no way concerned for the death of the deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum and she committed suicide due to financial problem in the house and Ex.P7 statement is created to suit the prosecution case and they did not refer Mos 1 to 4 for expert opinion to know as to whether they contains the thumb impression of the accused and the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum received burn injuries all over the body and she was not in a position to give the statement and PW-12 fabricated her statement and obtained thumb impression and scene observation panchanama was not conducted and Exs.P1 and P2 are created and Mos 1 to 4 are planted for the purpose of this case.
31.PW-1 who is an eye witness to the incident in his evidence stated that PW-3 who is a daughter of deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and ac- cused informed him that the accused set fire to the deceased by pouring kerosene and he sent her to hospital in an auto. PW-2 who is the son, PW-3
Page 18 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 who is the daughter of the accused and deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in their cross examination stated that after the incident, the accused went into washroom and they caught him and their mother Shahenaaz Begum lodged report in police station and PW-3 also stated after the incident while the accused was running away, they caught him in the house premises itself and they denied the suggestion that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased and he is an innocent person and was falsely implicated in this case.
32.PW-4 who is mother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in her cross examination stated that the deceased informed her in the hospital that the accused poured kerosene on her. PW-5 who is elder brother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in his cross examination stated that he was informed about the incident at about 4:30 or 5:00 am by PW-3 and LW-4/
Tahera Begum. He denied that the accused is not responsible for the dearth of the deceased and by influencing the police, he got registered falsely implicated against the accused. His evidence reveals that when he went to the Osmania General Hospital, the deceased informed him that while she was doing namaz in the house, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set fire and after 2 days, the deceased was died in Osmania
General Hospital.
33.In order to prove the charges under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC, the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC on the incriminating evidence available against him which he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf. PW-11 the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the victim/ deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum on 25.07.2014 after declaration given by the doctor
Page 19 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 that she was fit for giving the statement. Ex.P6 is the dying declaration of the deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum. After recording the statement, she again obtained the certificate of the duty doctor that the victim/Shahenaaz
Begum is conscious, coherent and in a fit stage of mind to give her statement throughout recording of her statement. On 27.07.2014 at 9:00 am, PW-15/Inspector of Police received information from the Osmania
General Hospital, Hyderabad about the death of the deceased/ Shahenaaz
Begum and then he altered the section of law and sent Ex.P10 alteration memo to all the concerned and then he held Inquest over the dead body of the deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum in the presence of PW-7 and
LW-16/Ameer and got photographed of the dead body of the deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum and later referred the dead body to doctor/LW-22 for
PME Report and later the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for conducting last rites.
34.The deceased/Shahenaaz Begum clearly stated in Ex.P7 that the accused harassed her by saying that he is going to perform another marriage and he increased the harassment from the last 2 months prior to the incident and on 25.07.2014 in Ramzan Month at about 3:00 am when she was preparing food, the accused came there by abusing her in filthy language and asking for Rs.500/- and suddenly he poured kerosene on her and set fire and she raised hues and cries and their house owner and her son came there and shifted her to hospital.
35.PW-1 who is an eye witness to the incident in his evidence stated that PW-3 who is a daughter of deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and ac- cused informed him that the accused set fire to the deceased by pouring kerosene and he sent her to hospital in an auto. PW-2 who is the son, PW-3 who is the daughter of the accused and deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in
Page 20 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 their cross examination stated that after the incident, the accused went into washroom and they caught him and their mother Shahenaaz Begum lodged report in police station and PW-3 also stated after the incident while the accused was running away, they caught him in the house premises itself and they denied the suggestion that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased and he is an innocent person and was falsely implicated in this case.
36.PW-4 who is mother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in her cross examination stated that the deceased informed her in the hospital that the accused poured kerosene on her. PW-5 who is elder brother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in his cross examination stated that he was informed about the incident at about 4:30 or 5:00 am by PW-3 and LW-4/
Tahera Begum. He denied that the accused is not responsible for the dearth of the deceased and by influencing the police, he got registered falsely implicated against the accused. His evidence reveals that when he went to the Osmania General Hospital, the deceased informed him that while she was doing namaz in the house, the accused poured kerosene on her body and set fire and after 2 days, the deceased was died in Osmania
General Hospital.
37.PW-11, the learned Magistrate who recorded DD of the de- ceased/ Shahenaaz Begum in her evidence stated that the victim/
Shahenaaz Begum stated that her husband is threatening her to perform another marriage in the presence of his relatives and he is harassing her and making fun of her that her brother died and scolding her a lot throughout the night and harassing her a lot stating that he will leave her and perform another marriage. She stated that she identified the patient with the help of a duty doctor and he certified that patient is conscious,
Page 21 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement and she also asked some preliminary questions to know her condition. She further stated after recording her statement, she obtained the certificate of the duty doctor that the patient is conscious, coherent and in a fit state of mind to give statement throughout recording of our statement. Ex.P7 is the dying dec- laration of the deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum. In the cross examination, she stated that the deceased has not stated before her as to how she received the injuries and who beat her.
38.PW-12 who recorded the statement of deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum in his cross examination stated that he found burnt injuries all over the body of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and he does not know who admitted the Shahenaaz Begum in the hospital. He denied that as the
Shahenaaz Begum received burn injuries all over the body, she was not in a position to give the statement and that he had fabricated her statement.
39.Pws 13, 15 and 16 are the Investigating Officers and their evi- dence discloses with regard to the issuance of FIR and Investigation. PW-13 in his cross examination stated that he and PW-12 together recorded the statement of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum and the witnesses. He stated that he does not know whether police has no knowledge about the incident till telephonic message received from Osmania General Hospital.
The evidence of PW-15 reveals that the statement of the deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum was given to him by PW-12 and it contains the thumb impression of the deceased he stated that the deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum did not come to him previously that the accused was harassing her both physically and mentally by demanding dowry and stated that he does not know that the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum was suffering with kidney problem and medicines prescribed in Sameena Hospital are relating to the
Page 22 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 said Kidney problem. Pws 15 and 16 denied. The deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum poured kerosene and set ablaze herself due to the health problem and the accused is no way concerned for her death. The evidence of PW-16 reveals that their investigation does not reveal as to whether the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum gave a complaint against the accused stating that he is harassing her during her lifetime. He denied that deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum did not state anything against the accused in Ex.P6 and they created the statement of the deceased to suit their case. He stated that they did not refer Mos 1 to 4 for expert opinion to show as to whether they contains the thumb impression of the accused. The evidence of
PW.16 reveals that he got recorded the Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Statements of PW2,
PW3 and LW10/Asra Begum by learned IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ex.P.14 to P.16 are the 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of
PW2, PW3 and LW10/Asra Begum.
40.The evidence of PW.14/Medical Officer discloses that he know
LW22/K.V. Ramesh, Asst. Professor and he worked in their Hospital and he expired 2 years back and the said Dr. K.V. Ramesh conducted Post-Mortem
Examination over the dead body of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum on 27.07.2014 and issued Ex.P.12/Post-Mortem Examination Report, dated 27.07.2014 and he opined that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased/Shahebnaaz Begum are antimortem in nature and caused by burns and opined that cause of death of deceased was due to burns and time of death was 27.07.2014 at 3.30 PM. In the cross-examination, he stated that he has no further knowledge of Ex.P.12 and deposing evidence only as per records.
41.It is not in dispute that the death of the deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum was not under normal circumstances. The evidence of doctor/
Page 23 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
PW-14 who treated the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum reveals that she was brought to their hospital by PWs, 2, 5, 7 along with her Sister-in-law namely Nafeeza Begum with burn injuries and the victim/LW-1/ Shahenaaz
Begum told that her husband poured kerosene on her and set ablaze and on examination, the found burn injuries on LW-1/deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum all over the body and she sustained 68% of the burn injuries and they gave treatment to her but she was died on 27.07.2014 at about 3:30 am due to burn injuries and she is not having any other ailments. Ex.P8 is the copy of the case sheet of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum, dated 25.07.2014. In the cross examination, he stated that at the time of admission, the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum was conscious and able to speak and she was in conscious stage for 2 days and she was present at the time of recording of statement of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum by the Magistrate.
42.The evidence of PW-15 who is one of the Investigating Officer reveals that after Ex.P11/Inquest, he handed over the dead body of the de- ceased/ Shahenaaz Begum to the Medical Officer/LW-22/K.V. Ramesh for
Post Mortem Examination report and accordingly he conducted Post
Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased/ Shahenaaz Be- gum. He also got photographed the dead body of the deceased/ Sha- henaaz Begum with the help of PW-9. Ex.P3is the 6 photographs of the dead body of the deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum. Ex.P4is the medical pre- scription of the deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum.
43.The evidence of PW-10/daughter reveals that on 24.11.2013 at about 6:50 pm, deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum came to their hospital i.e.,
Sameena Hospital, Talabkatta and she stated to her that her husband poured kerosene and lit fire and she has given the FIRST AID treatment and
Page 24 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 prescribed medicines for her.Ex.P4 is the medical prescription. In the cross examination, she stated that deceased/ Shahenaaz Begum directly came to her hospital but not through the police and admitted that after medical prescription is returned, it will given to the patient and denied that she recently prepared Ex.P4 and handed over the same to police for the purpose of this case.
44.It is settled law that the Criminal Jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved, the person facing the trial would be presumed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charges against the accused is on the prosecution but not on the accused. The prosecution if fails to connect the act of the accused with the ultimate crime where the material link constituting the offence are found missing, then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
45.In the statement of the victim/ Shahenaaz Begum/LW-1 i.e.,
Ex.P7 recorded by PW-13 and basing on which PW-15 registered a case in
Crime No. 142 of 2014 U/s. 307, 498-A of IPC and issued Ex.P9/FIR. In
Ex.P7, the victim/LW-1/Shahenaaz Begum stated that “her marriage was performed with her husband Md. Liaq and they blessed with four children and she is working in a bangle kharkhana near to her residence and since one year her husband/Md. Liaq is not doing any work and their son/Siraj is studying and in the evening hours, he is working in a vegetable shop near to their residence and yesterday i.e., 24.07.2014 Siraj’s vegetable shop owner has given Rs.500/- to him to purchase new cloths in view of Ramzan
Festival and in the night hours, her husband started quarrelling with her and their son/Siraj to give that Rs.500/- to him and husband is also harass- ing her by saying that is going to perform another marriage and everyday abusing her in filthy language and from the last one year, he increased the
Page 25 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 harassment towards her. It is further mentioned that two months back,
Md.Liaq poured kerosene on the complainant, but he did not set fire and pressurizing her to leave him and on 25.07.2014 at about 3:00 am, the complainant woke up in the morning and in the meantime Siraj also woke up and went to Namaz and at about 4:00 am, while the complainant was preparing food and in the meantime her husband came there by abusing her in filthy language and asking her Rs.500/- and suddenly, he poured kerosene on her and set fire and on hues and cries of the complainant, their house owner and h son came there and stopped the fire and shifted her to hospital and she requested to take necessary action against her husband who harassed her and attempted to commit murder”.
46.Except putting suggestions to PWs. 1 to 4, nothing is elicited from their cross examination to show what is the necessity for them to depose falsehood against the accused before a court of law. PW2 and 3 are none other than the son and daughter of the accused and the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum. The learned Legal Aid Counsel contends that
Ex.P.14 and P.15 are fabricated for the purpose of this case. PW.16 denied the suggestion that Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Statements will not be recorded by the
Magistrate within the 4 days of filing requisition and are fabricated for the
purpose of this case. Ex.P.14 and P.15 are the Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.Ws.2 and 3 recorded by learned IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate., Hyderabad, dated 08.08.2014. PWs.2 and 3 in their evidence
categorically stated that they have also given statements previously in the court before the Magistrate. PW.4 who is the mother of the deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum in her cross-examination clearly stated that the deceased informed her in the hospital that the accused poured kerosene on her and stated that she had not given any report to the police against the accused prior to this case. She denied that the accused never poured
Page 26 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 kerosene on the body of the deceased and set fire and he is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
47.PW.5 who is the brother of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum in his evidence stated that when he and his wife went to the Osmania
General Hospital, the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum informed him that while she was doing Namaz in the house, the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire. In the cross-examination he stated that 6 months prior to the incident, report was given to the police when the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and police registered FIR and report given earlier but he was not arrested because the accused undertook to look after the deceased properly. He denied that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased and with the influence of police he got registered false complaint against the accused. Ex.P.3 are the Photographs of the dead body of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum.
48.As seen from the record, there is specific evidence of PWs.1 to 5 to the effect that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum and set ablazed her on 25.07.2014 in the month of
Ramzan in the early hours in the house of the accused situated in
Talabkatta, Hyderabad. Ex.P.6 is the Dying Declaration of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum recorded by PW.11 learned the then V Addl.
Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 25.07.2014. In Ex.P.6
Dying Declaration of deceased/Shahenaaz Begum, she categorically stated that her husband is threatening her by stating that he will perform another marriage in the presence of his relatives and harassed her and making fun of her and scolding her a lot through out the night and harassing her a lot that he will leave her and perform another marriage. The Duty Doctor also made an endorsement on Ex.P.6 D.D. that the patient is conscious,
Page 27 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 coherent and in a fit state of mind throughout the recording of her statement. The Doctor/PW.14 in his evidence clearly stated that the victim/Shahenaaz Begum/deceased told that her husband poured kerosene on her and set ablaze her and on examination, he found burn injuries on victim/Shahenasaz Begum all over the body and she sustained 68% burn injuries. In the cross-examinatiion, he clearly stated that at the time of admission, the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum/victim/LW.1 is in conscious state and able to speak and she was in conscious state for two days and he was present at the time of recording statement of the deceased/
Shahenaaz Begum/victim/LW.1 by the learned Magistrate. Ex.P.8 is the
Copy of the Case Sheet of the deceased/victim/Shahebnaaz Begum.
49. There is ample evidence on record to substantiate that the accused harassed the deceased both physically and mentally with an intention to contact second marriage and by demanding money and treated her with cruelty and when she was attending cooking in the early hours on 25.07.2014 in the month of Ramzan, the accused demanded her for money and poured kerosene on her and set fire with an intention to kill her and caused the death of the deceased. MOs. 1 to 4 i.e., MO-1 is the
Plastic tin (Now there is no kerosene), MO-2 is the Small burnt cloth pieces,
MO-3 is the Partially burnt bed sheet and MO-4 is the Match box. The evi- dence of PW.13/Investigation Officer reveals that he seized MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence in the presence of PW.8 and LW.14/Mohd. Jabbar Khan under cover of Ex.P.1/Scene of Observation-cum-Seizure Panchanama. The evidence of PW.8 is corroborating with the evidence of PW.13/Investigating
Officer with regard to the conducting of Ex.P.1/Panchanama and seizure of
MOs. 1 to 4. PW.8 though turned hostile to the extent of drafting of rough sketch, in the cross-examination he admitted with regard to drafting of rough sketch of scene of offence. Except putting suggestions to PWs.13
Page 28 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 and PW.8 nothing is elicited from their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Further, except putting suggestions to PWs.1 to 5, nothing is elicited from their cross-examination to discredit their testimony and there is no reason for PWs.1 to 5 to give false evidence implicating the accused in the grave allegations of murder. The evidence of the Magistrate who recorded the Dying Declaration/PW11, the medical evidence is also corrob- orating with the occular evidence.
50.The evidence of PWs. 12, 13, 15 and 16 is corroborated with the evidence of PWs. 1 to 11 and 14 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.16 and Mos.1 to 4. Except putting suggestions to Investigation Officers, nothing is elicited from their cross-examination, as to what is the necessity for them or enmity with the accused to foist false case against the accused in a grave allegation of murder.
51.The learned counsel for the accused submits that Exs,P.14 to
P.16 are fabricated for the purpose of this case. On perusal of Exs.P.14 to
P.16 it could be seen they are the statements of PW2, PW3 and LW.10/Asra
Begum recorded by the then learned IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad on the requisition given by the police. PW2 and 3
clearly stated in their evidence that they have also given statement before a Magistrate. The contention of the learned defence counsel that Exs.P.14 to P.16 are fabricated one for the purpose of this case is not tenable as they were recorded by the learned Magistrate before a court of law.
52.It is not in dispute that the death of the deceased/Shahenaaz
Begum was not under normal circumstances. The occular evidence cou- pled with medical evidence coupled with Ex.P.12/PME Report established the fact that the deceased was died to due to burns. The evidence of
Page 29 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
PW.14/Medical Officer also reveal that the death of the deceased was due to due to burns and time of death was 27.07.2014 at about 3.30 AM. The material placed on record as well as from the medical evidence and Dying
Declaration of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum clinchingly establishes that the death of the deceased was not a suicidal death but it is a homicidal death. The evidence of PWs.1 to 16 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.16 and MOs.1 to 4 is put together, it clinchingly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. What is the necessity for PWs.1 to 5 or what is the enmity between them and accused to depose falsehood against the accused to implicate him in a grave offence is not elicited from their evidence. On the other hand, PW2 and 3 are none other than the children of the accused himself and nothing is elicited in their cross-examination to discard their evidence. The evidence on record is consistent and inspires full confidence so as to bring home the guilt of the accused for the of- fences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 IPC.
53. For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs and when the evidence of PWs.1 to 16 coupled with Ex.P1 to P16 and MOs.1 to 4 is put together, it could be seen that the prosecution has clinchingly established the commission of the offences under Sections 498-A and 302
IPC that the accused harassed the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum both physically and mentally by demanding money and with an intention to contact second marriage and he treated her with cruelty and when she was cooking in the early hours of 25.07.2014, he poured kerosene on her and lit fire with an intention to kill her and caused the death of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.
MOs.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Page 30 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
54.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted as per the provisions under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pro- nounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
When I questioned the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence, he stated that :
I am having small children. I have to look after them.
55.Heard the accused, the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on quantum of sentence. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the remand period already undergone by the accused shall be given set-off and he may be released. The learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no grounds to take a lenient view.
56.Taking the plea of the accused into consideration and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, I find that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and shall pay a fine amount of
Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of (2) two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused is
Page 31 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014 further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (6) Six
Months and shall pay a fine amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Im- prisonment for a period of (1) one month for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Re- mand period already undergone by the accused shall be given set-off, as per provisions of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1: Md. Shakeel Ahmed, (Eye Witness & rescued the LW-1).
PW.2: Md. Siraj (Son of deceased/eye witness & rescued).
PW.3: Kum Asiya Begum (Daughter of deceased/eye witness).
PW.4: Smt. Putli Begum (mother of victim and witness)
PW.5: Md. Jahangir (elder brother of deceased & witness)
PW.6: Mohammed Haji (Circumstantial witness)
PW.7: Smt. Kanees Fathima (Panch for inquest report)
PW.8: Sri Ghouse Pasha (Panch for Scene of offence Panchanama, rough sketch & seizure)
PW.9: Sri Syed Sadak (Photographer/took the photos of Scene of Offence)
PW.10: Dr. Sameena Begum (Circumstantial Witness)
PW.11: Smt. G. Rajani (Recorded D.D. of victim/deceased)
PW.12: Sri K. Satish Reddy (Recorded the statement of victim & assisted for 1st Investigating Officer)
PW.13: Sri N. Srisailam (1st Investigating Officer)
PW.14: Dr. E. Vijay Kumar Yadav (Who treated the victim)
PW.15: Sri P. Shankar (Issued FIR & Conducted Inquest over the dead body of deceased)
PW.16: Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Investigating Officer)
Page 32 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Scene of offence observation and seizure panchanama, dated 25.07.2014.
Ex.P.2: Rough sketch of scene of offence.
Ex.P.3: Consists of 6 photographs taken on the dead body of deceased.
Ex.P.4: Medical Prescription dated 24.11.2013 of Shahanaz Begum.
Ex.P.5: Requisition dated 25.07.2014 received by PW11 from Police
Bhavani Nagar.
Ex.P.6: Dying Declaration of the deceased/Shahanaz Begum, dated 25.07.2014.
Ex.P.7: Statement of Shahanaz Begum, W/o. Mohammed Laiq, Age 34 years, R/o. Aman Nagar-B, Talabkatta, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad,
dated 25.07.2014..
Ex.P.8: Copy of Case Sheet of the deceased/LW1/victim dated 25.07.2014.
Ex.P.9: FIR, dated 25.07.2014.
Ex.P10: Alteration Memo dated nil.
Ex.P11: Inquest dated 27.07.2014.
Ex.P.12: Post Mortem Examination Report of the deceased/Shahenaaz Begum, dated 27.07.2014.
Ex.P.13: Requisition filed before the learned IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 04.08.2014.
Exs.P.14 to P.16: Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of the PW2, PW3 and LW.10/Asra Begum, dated 08.08.2014.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO-1 : Plastic tin (Now there is no kerosene).
MO-2 : Small burnt cloth pieces.
MO-3 : Partially burnt bed sheet.
MO-4 : Match box.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Page 33 of 32 Judgment in S.C.No.415 of 2014
Page 1 of 27
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
SESSIONS JUDGE: HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. P.V.P.Lalitha Siva Jyothi, II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
FRI DAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
SESSIONS CASE NO. 88 OF 2019
(in PRC No. 50 of 2019)
Committed by Sri D. Venkatesh, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Crime Number and Police Station924 of 2015 P.S., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Name &description of the Mohd. Hymadh, S/o. Mohd. Razaq, accusedAge: 25 years, Occ: Play back Singer, R/o. H.No. 340, Avanthi Nagar (East), Erragadda, Hyderabad. N/o. H.No. 11-91-2, Srirampur, Kalavasrirampur (V&M), Karimnagar District. Name and description of the com-The State represented by Sub plainantInspector of Police, P.S., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Prosecution conducted bySri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Addl. Public Prosecutor. accused defended bySri. C.V.Srinath, Learned Counsel for the accused. Offence chargedUnder Sections 354, 354(D), 326(B) and 506 of IPC Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.
ResultIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sec- tions 354, 354(D), 326(B) and 506 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquit- ted as per provisions of under Sec- tion 235(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled af- ter expiry of appeal time.
This case is coming on 01.02.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State/Complainant and of Sri C.V.Srinath, Learned Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
Page 2 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.924 of 2015 of P.S.,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The case of the prosecution, against the accused in brief is that the accused person Mohammed Hymath professionally is a singer and being the same profession, he proposed the complainant/Victim/LW.1/Miss.
Aretty Shishira for marriage about 1 year back and later she came to know about his character and she refused the marriage proposal and since then, the accused threatening to kill her and after few months, he got married to another girl which she came to know through her friends and after marriage accused started threatening her over phone and once when she was returning home from a recording studio, accused person stopped her and threatened with his associates, since 2 months there were repeated harassments over phone and he tried to outrage her modesty with indecent words of harassment and threatened to stop her singing otherwise to avenge her and being a girl out of modesty she could not complain to anyone and has been suffering silently for the last few months and on 19.08.2015 after completion of song recording in recording theatre at Satyasainigamam, she was returning to her home on her two wheeler
AP-09-CK-4285, meanwhile, she reached near Ratnadeep Supermarket at
Srinagar Colony at about 8.00 P.M., accused person followed her wheeler and thrown a burning liquid over her and the accused person was stalking her on one or other pretext, as she denied his proposal for marriage and though he was married, the harassment was not stopped and the complainant/LW.1 gave complaint in P.S., Banjara Hills and basing on the
Page 3 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 complaint, LW.9/S.Santosham/Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in
Crime No. 924/2015 under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354, 506 I.P.C and during the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the detailed statement of LW.1/Injured and sent her to Tanveer Hospital for treatment and he examined and recorded the statement of LW.2 and visited the scene of offence and secured two mediators i.e., LWs.3 and 4 i.e., Sri Alsan Kiran and Talla Sunil Kumar and in their presence drawn rough sketch and conducted the scene of offence Panchanama and LW.1 handed over one Black Colour Jacket on which the accused person poured unknown liquid and he seized the same in the presence of panchas i.e.,
LWs. 5 and 6 i.e., P.Venkatesh and G.Jangaiah under cover of Seizure
Report and the seized Jacket was sent to FSL for examination and while the investigation is in progress he served notice to the accused person, but he has not complied and on 22.08.2016 he arrested the accused person Mohd.
Hymadh and produced him before the Court for judicial custody and
LW.7/Dr. Nunal Singh issued Wound Certificate of LW.1 opined that the injuries are “Simple in Nature” and LW.8/K. Rama Devi, Assistant Director,
APFSL, Hyderabad opined that the Item No.1 is found to contain traces of “Hydrochloric Acid” a corrosive Chemical in it and LW.9 handed over the case file to LW.10/Ch. Jitender Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad for further investigation and LW.10 verified the investigation done by LW.9 and found it on correct lines and the accused person Mohd. Hymadh, S/o. Mohd. Razaq, committed the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 I.P.C. Hence the charge.
3.This case was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 50 of 2019 by learned
III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for offences under
Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C. against the accused.
Page 4 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
4.On appearance of accused, all the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C by the committal Court. The learned III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad having found prima-facie case against the accused for the offences under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C. and as the offence under Section 326(B) of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the
Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad by following the due procedure contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
5.The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has taken the case on file as S.C.No. 88 of 2019 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law. The accused is on bail.
6.On appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned
Additional Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused were
heard u/Sec. 226 of Cr.P.C. and on considering the material on record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., the charges under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C. are framed against the accused and the same are read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 out of 10 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 andMO.1, the details of which are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.
8.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence
Page 5 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 reflected in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf.
9.Heard arguments of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, learned Addl. Pub- lic Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. C.V. Srinath, Learned Counsel
for the accused.
10.The point that arises for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?
POINT:
11.To prove the offences under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to establish that the accused harassed the complainant/Victim/PW.1 and stalking PW.1 on one pretext or the other, as she denied his proposal for marriage, he assaulted and used criminal force on her intending to outrage or knowing it to be that he will thereby outrage her modesty and repeatedly harassed her over phone and tried to outrage her modesty with indecent words of harassment and on 19.08.2015 at about 8.00 P.M., he followed her when she was returning to her home and thrown a burning liquid over her with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to PW.1 and threatened to kill her and also threatened her to stop her singing, otherwise to avenge her beyond all rea- sonable doubt.
12.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/Victim/PW1 is a singer by profession and PW.2 is her sister and the accused is also a singer and as such she knows the accused since 2013 and that initially she
Page 6 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 and the accused both agreed to marry each other and she also informed the same to her elders in the house and her sisters and her brother-in-laws told that they intend to talk with the accused and the accused talked to them in a rude manner and they decided that the accused is not a correct match to her and the accused left their house after talking with her elders and she came to accused room at Yousufguda, Srinagar Colony to tell about her decision as advised by her elders and she informed to accused that she is no more intend to marry him and at the time of coming to the accused to tell about the decision, she also informed her elders about the same and at that time, in or around 2014 or 2015, when she expressed that she does not want to marry the accused, the accused caught hold of her throat and having crushed and pushed her to the wall, as she had inti- mated about her coming to the accused room, her brother-in-laws also fol- lowed her later and some time after the accused caught hold her throat and pushed her to the wall, they also came to the accused room and took her away from his room and due to throat pain sustained by PW.1 in the incident, she did not attend to her professional work of singing and subsequently, after some days she started going for her professional singing work and the accused met her on the way while she was returning from her work and threatened her in a drunken situation and caused a threat and uttered that he will see how she can marry someone and subsequently, the accused married another girl and she thought that there would be no more threats from the accused, as he was married and after some days, she started receiving threatening calls in filthy language and there was a threat to see her when she attend to her professional work and several calls were received in the same manner and after some days she informed the same to her elders and as per their elders decision, no complaint was given on the pretext that she has to be married and that on 19th August, 2015, she was returning from her recording theatre work place
Page 7 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 and on the way at about 8 PM, it was dark at that time and when she was on her bike, two persons poured some liquid on her vehicle and fled away and she stopped the vehicle to see what was poured on her vehicle and in fact some part of the same also fell on her jacket and smoke was also coming out from the rear side of the vehicle and some passerby noticed the same and told that the liquid poured was like acid and he also asked her whether she had any enmity or suspicion with anyone and immediately, she proceeded to P.S. Banjara Hills and even before lodging the complaint, since she sustained rashes in the incident, the police referred her to a private hospital nearby and she lodged Ex.P1 Complaint at about 11 or 11.30 PM and even prior to the incident, the accused warned her as to how she can move and work and therefore, she sus- pected the accused and accordingly, lodged Ex.P1/Complaint and on 19.08.2015 PW.6/S.Santhosham, Sub-Inspector of Police in P.S. Banjara Hills received Ex.P.1 report from PW1 and basing on it, he registered a case in
Cr. No. 924/2015 under Section 354-D, 326-B, 354 and 506 IPC and issued
Ex.P6/FIR and he had examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and sent PW.1 to Tanveer Hospital, Kamalpuri Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for medical treatment and PW1 handed over to him one black colour jacket which was seized in the presence of PW4 and G.Jangaiah (LW6) under the cover of Seizure Report Ex.P4 and MO1 is the black colour jacket and he also examined and recorded the statement of PW2 and he visited the scene of offence at Ratnadeep Super Market at Srinagar Colony, Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad and secured the presence of PW3 and E.Sunil Kumar (LW4) and observed the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence and Ex.P7 is the Scene of offence observation pan- chanama dated 20.08.2015 and Ex.P8 is rough sketch of scene of of- fence and he sent MO1 to FSL for examination and on receipt of credible information on 22.08.2015, he proceeded to Bharat Nagar, Kukatpally and
Page 8 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 arrested the accused and produced the accused before the Court and further investigation was taken up by his successor PW.7/ Ch. Jithender
Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and verified the investigation made by PW6 and found it on proper lines and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
13.To prove the charges under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C, the prosecution altogether got examined 7 witnesses out of 10 listed witnesses and got markedExs.P.1 to P.9 and MO.1.
14.The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution are
Exs.P.1 to P9. Ex.P.1 is the Complaint. Ex.P.2 is the Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.3 is the Signature of PW.3 in the Scene of Offence
Panchanama. Ex.P.4 is Seizure Report. Ex.P.5 is the Certificate issued by
PW.5. Ex.P.6 is the FIR. Ex.P.7 is the Scene of Offence Observation
Panchanama, dated 20.08.2015. Ex.P.8 is the Rought Sketch of Scene of
Offence and Ex.P.9 is the FSL Report, dated 04.09.2015. MO.1 is the Black
Colour Jacket of PW.1. As seen from the record,rough sketch of scene of offenceismarked as Ex.P.2, but immediately, it is again marked as Ex.P.8.
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.8 are one and the same.
15.To establish the offences under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C., the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 7.
PW.1 is the Complainant and victim. PW.2 is the Witness and Sister of
PW.1. PW.3 is the Panch Witness for Scene of Offence Observation
Panchanama and Rough Sketch. PW.4 is the Panch Witness for Seizure
Report. PW.5 is the Medical Officer. PWs.6 and 7 are the Investigating
Officers.
Page 9 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
16.The evidence of PW-1/Complainant/victim discloses that she is a singer by profession and the accused is also a singer and as such she knows the accused since 2013 and they both agreed to marry each other and she also informed the same to her elders and her sisters and her brother-in-laws told that they will talk with the accused and the accused talked to them in a rude manner and they decided that the accused is not a correct match to her. She further stated that she came to accused room in Yousufguda, Srinagar Colony and informed him that she is no more intend to marry him and at the time of coming to the accused to tell about the decision, she also informed her elders about the same and at that time, in or around 2014 or 2015, when she expressed that she does not want to marry the accused and the accused caught hold of her throat and having crushed and pushed her to the wall, as she had intimated about her coming to the accused room, her brother-in-laws also followed her later and some time after the accused caught hold her throat and pushed her to the wall, they also came to the accused room and took her away from his room and due to throat pain sustained by PW.1 in the incident, she did not attend to her professional work of singing and subsequently, after some days she started going for her professional singing work and the accused met her on the way while she was returning from her work and threatened her in a drunken situation and uttered that he will see how she can marry someone and subsequently, the accused married another girl and she thought that there would be no more threats from the accused, as he was married, but after some days, she received threatening calls in filthy language and there was a threat to see her when she attend to her professional work and several calls were received in the same manner and after some days she informed the same to her elders and as per their elders decision no complaint was given on the pretext that she has to be married.
Page 10 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
17.She further deposed that on 19th August, 2015, when she was returning from her recording theatre work place and on the way at about 8
PM, it was dark at that time and when she was on her bike two persons poured some liquid on her vehicle and fled away and she stopped the vehicle to see what was poured on her vehicle and in fact some part of the same also fell on her jacket and smoke was also coming out from the rear side of the vehicle and her jacket and some passerby noticed the same and told that the liquid poured was like acid and he also asked her whether she had any enmity or suspicion with anyone and immediately, she proceeded to P.S., Banjara Hills and even before lodging the complaint, since she sustained rashes in the incident, the police referred her to a private hospital nearby place and stated that even prior to the incident, the accused warned her as to how she can move and work and therefore, she suspected the accused and accordingly, lodged Ex.P1/Complaint and she also mentioned the name of the accused as culprit, and identified the accused present in the court and further stated that she also submitted the accused phone recordings to the police and MO1 is her Upper Wear (black in colour).
18.The evidence of PW-2 discloses that the she was a Ph.D.,
Scholar and PW1 is her sister and PW1 informed her that she proposed to marry accused and her husband, her sister and her brother-in-law asked
PW1 to bring the accused for talks to confirm the proposal and in the year 2014, accused came to their house and she asked about the proposal of accused to marry PW1 and accused gave rude answers and said that since accused loved PW1, they have to accept for marrying her and the manner of answering was not impressive and they expressed their opinion that accused rude behaviour is not acceptable and accused left their house
Page 11 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 saying that they can do whatever they want and subsequently, they convinced PW1 and informed her that they will not agree for PW1 marrying accused and later, PW1 received abusive calls from accused and infact on one occasion she also talked to accused in the course of receiving such calls. She further deposed that on 19.08.2015 some person called her on phone and informed that an acid attack was made on PW1 and as PW1 was in shock, he was giving the information and that person also informed her that the incident took place at Srinagar Colony and immediately, she informed to her husband and other members of their family.
19.The evidence of PW-3 discloses that on 19.08.2015 at 8 PM, when he was at Ratnadeep Super Market, Banjara Hills, Road No.3,
Opposite to TV9 Office, police called him there and shown that some burning incident took place and police drawn Ex.P.2 rough sketch and panchanama was also conducted. Ex.P3 is his signature on the scene of offence panchanama.
20.The evidence of PW-4 discloses that about 4 years ago the SI of
Police/S.Santosham/PW6 of P.S., Banjara Hills called him to the Police
Station and asked him to act as a panchayatdar at 11 or 11.30 PM and one
Jangaiah/LW6 was also called along with him and one lady was present in the Police Station and in their presence one Jacket was shown by PW6 and he identified that it is MO1 and PW.6 obtained his signature on
Ex.P4/Seizure Report.
21. The evidence of PW5 discloses that he is a Director of
M/s.Tanvir Hospital at Hyderabad and on 19.08.2015 at 10.30 PM, she examined patient by name A.Sirisha/PW1 and found that PW1 was in shock and complained that she had a burning sensation on her back of the left
Page 12 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 shoulder and left leg and she also smelt some acid sensation from PW1 and no external injuries were found on the body of PW.1. Ex.P5 is the
Injury Certificate issued by him.
22.The evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 are the Investigation Officers and their evidence discloses with regard to the issuance of FIR and investigation.
23.The learned APP submits that the prosecution has clinchingly established the commission of the offence under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C by the accused through the evidence of PW1 to PW7 coupled with Ex. P1 to P9 and MO.1beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused is liable to be convicted.
24.Per contra, the learned Learned Counsel submits that the accused never harassed and followed PW.1 after his marriage and as he got married, PW.1 created false allegations against him and gave
Ex.P.1/Report and no complaint was given by PW.1 against the accused prior to Ex.P.1, as he never did any act or acts against PW.1 illegally and the contents of Ex.P.1/Complaint are all false and are created for the purpose of this case to harass him and no incident occurred as alleged by
PW.1 and she gave Ex.P.1 false complaint and without verifying the same, the police registered a case against the accused and without making any proper investigation, they have falsely implicated the accused in this case and the presence of the accused is not proved at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident and the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the alleged offences and the presence of the accused on the date of alleged incident is not proved and the prosecution miserably failed to establish the alleged commission of the offences punishable under
Page 13 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
25.In order to prove the charges under Sections 354(D), 326(B), 354 and 506 of I.P.C, the prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.PC on the incriminating evidence available against him, wherein khe pleaded innocence and de- nied the correctness of the prosecution evidence and stated that he does not know anything about this case. Accused did not lead any defence evi- dence.
26.It is settled law that the Criminal Jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved, the person facing the trial would be presumed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charges against the accused is on the prosecution but not on the accused. The prosecution if fails to connect the act of the accused with the ultimate crime where the material link constituting the offence are found missing, then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
27.Before discussing the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is expedient to read some of the important averments mentioned in
Ex.P.1/complaint, basing on which the present case was registered against accused in brief is that “for the past 3 months PW.1 was being harassed verbally over phone and was threatened physically twice by the accused and she knows him personally as a singer for the past 2 years and being in the same profession, he proposed for marriage one year back and he was polite at that time and after he approached her guardians, his true colours came out and she rejected his marriage proposal. It is further
Page 14 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 mentioned that the accused tried to threaten her with dire consequences and once he held her throat and threatened to kill her and after few months, he got married and she came to know the same through friends and immediately, after marriage, he started threatening her over phone and once when she was returning home from a recording studio, he stopped her and threatened her with his associates and since two months, there were repeated harassments over phone and he tried to outrage her modesty with indecent words of harassment and threatened to stop her singing otherwise to avenge her and she being a girl, she could not com- plain to any one and she has been suffering silently for the last few months and on 19.08.2015, after completion of song recording, she was returning home on her two wheeler and when she reached near Ratnadeep Super- market at Srinagar Colony at about 8.00 P.M., two persons followed her by two wheeler and thrown a burning liquid over her and she was unable to notice them due to darkness and she suspects Mohd. Hymadh and his as- sociates attacked her and requested to take necessary action.”
28. However, strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of legal proof of evidence on their own in a criminal case. It is settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond all the reasonable doubt. To establish the offence under Section 354 IPC, it is for the prosecution to prove that i) the person assaulted must be a woman ii) that the accused must have used criminal force on her and iii) that the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty. The two necessary in- gredients of Section 354 IPC are “assault” or “use of criminal force” to any woman and with the intention to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.
Page 15 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
29.To establish the offence u/Sec. 354(D) IPC, it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused had followed the complainant and contacted her to foster personal interaction with her repeatedly, despite in- dication of disinterest by her. The factum of the accused following the complainant is not the sole ingredient of offence u/Sec. 354(D) IPC and it was also for the prosecution to prove that the same was being done to fos- ter personal interaction and that it continued even after the complainant expressed clear disinterest in the same.
30.Under Section 326(B) IPC, the mere act of throwing or mere at- tempt to throw or attempt to administer or attempt to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or de- formity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person is punishable with a mandatory minimum imprisonment of 5 years, which may extend to seven years and fine.
31.Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 of IPC and punishment was provided under Section 506 IPC. As laid down in Section, the threat in offence of criminal intimidation must be directed against person reputation or property and secondly, the threat must be made with intent either to cause alarm or to cause victim to do an act, which is not legally bound to do or to abstain from any act is entitled to perform. In order to attract 506 IPC, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim and it must be established that the accused had an in- tention to cause alarm to the complainant/PW.1.
32.The relevant required ingredient as per Sec. 354(D) IPC is ex- plained in the following manner “any man who follows a woman and con- tacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction re-
Page 16 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 peatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman – commits the offence of stalking.”
33.PW.3 is the Panch Witness to the scene of offence and he ad- mitted that his signature is not seen in Ex.P.2/Ex.P.8 Rough sketch of scene of offence and there is no date and time of preparation of Ex.P.2/Ex.P.8. he admitted that his signature was not seen on the first page of scene of of- fence observation panchanama.
34.PW.4 is the Panch Witness for Seizure Report and in his cross- examination, he stated that his phone number was available with PW.6/SI of Police and he had acquaintance with him and stated that he is a leader in M.B. Nagar, Banjara Hils, Road No.12 and he is in the habit of going to
Police Station now and then. In the chief-examination, he stated that MO.1 /Jacket was shown by LW.9 and one lady was also present in the police Sta- tion and police obtained his signature in Ex.P.4/Seizure Report. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was not shown any damages to MO.1.
He denied that no proceedings as in Ex.P.4 took place in the presence of himself and LW.6/Jangaiah and no Jacket/MO.1 was also shown to him in the Police Station and that he is deposing false in view of his acquaintance with PW.6.
35.PW.6/InvestigationOfficerevidencedisclosesthat
Ex.p.2/P.8/Rough sketch of scene of offence does not contain the signature of the panch witnesses and so also the date and Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice was served on the accused on 20.08.2015, but it was mentioned on the said notice as 13.07.2015 and stated that it is a typographical mistake. He deposed that there is no proof to show that the said notice was served on accused on 20.08.2015 and in Ex.P.1/Complaint PW.1 has given the mobile
Page 17 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 number of the accused and they have published the call data of the mobile number of the accused with location to the court. He deposed that the lo- cation of the accused, as per the said call data was in Bharat Nagar Colony in between 8.07 to 8.32 P.M., on 19.08.2015 and on 18.08.2015 the loca- tion of the accused was shown as Bharat Nagar Colony and stated that he does not know that the said Bharat Nagar colony is situated in Kukatpally,
Hyderabad. The evidence of PW.6 further discloses that there is no confes- sion-cum-Recovery Panchanama of the accused in this case and none of the witnesses examined by her stated that they have seen the accused while committing the offence.
36.The learned counsel for the accused submits that the evidence of PW.1/Complainant/victim is full of omissions and contradictions and there is no independent, corroborative evidence on record and the prose- cution failed to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of of- fence and as per the call data collected by the Investigation Officer, the lo- cation of the accused was in Bharat Nagar in between 8.07 to 8.32 P.M., on 19.08.2015 i.e., the time and the date of incident and the said Bharat Na- gar is situated in Kukatpally. Whereas the alleged incident occurred on 19.08.2015 at about 8.00 P.M., near Ratnadeep Supermarket at Srinagar
Colony and there is no eye witness to the incident and the prosecution mis- erably failed to establish the alleged commission of offences under Sec- tions 354, 354(D), 326(B) and 506 of IPC by the accused, beyond all rea- sonable doubts.
37.As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterates conviction can be based on sole eye witness testimony only, if he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person
Page 18 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Sec. 134 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony,
Courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material.
38.It is settled that the discrepancies or omissions have to be ma- terial ones and then alone, they may amount to contradictions of some se- rious consequence. Minor contradictions or inconsistencies of insignificant nature, which do not affect the case of the prosecution, should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omission amount to contradiction creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and the witness also make material improvement or contradiction before the court, in order to render the evi- dence unacceptable, that the Court may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but, not every contra- diction or an omission have to be taken into consideration.
39.Here in the present case, PW.1/victim in her cross-examination denied that she did not mention in Ex.P.1/Complainant and did not state
before the police that her sisters and brother in laws told her about their
intending to talk with the accused regarding her marriage proposal and af- ter they talked with the accused, they decided that the accused is not a match for her, as he behaved with them in a rude manner and also denied that she did not mention in Ex.P.1/Complaint and before the police that when she expressed that she does not want to marry him, the accused caught hold of her throat and having crushed and pushed to the wall and that she had intimated about her going to the room of the accused and her brother in laws also followed her later, and that they also came to the room
Page 19 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 of the accused and taken her out of the same. She also denied that she did not mention in Ex.P.1/Complaint and stated before the police that the accused met her on the way and threatened her in drunken state and he also caused a threat and he would see how she can marry someone and further denied that she did not mention in Ex.P.1/Complaint and stated be- fore the police that she stopped her vehicle to see what was poured on her vehicle and in fact some part of the same also fell on her jacket and that the same which was worn since it was drizzling and smoke also came out from the rear side of the vehicle and her jacket and that when she stopped there some passer by also noticed the same and told her that the liquid poured was like acid and he also asked whether she had enmity or suspi- cion on anyone and also denied that she did not mention in Ex.P.1/Com- plaint and stated before the police that as to the accused warning her how she can move and work even prior to that incident and About submitting of call records and phone recordings to the police.
40.The evidence of PW.1 further discloses that from the year 2012 to 2015 till rejecting the marriage proposal by her elders, they were in love with each other and stated none of the mobile numbers mentioned by her in the statement recorded by police belongs to the accused. She stated that MO.1 is not the Jacket which was worn by her on the date of incident and added that MO.1 is belongs to her only, but it was not the one on which acid was poured. She stated that she did not mention about the rashes in Ex.P.1/Complaint and did not state before the police regarding the same.
41.PW.2 in her cross-examination denied that she did not before the police that about PW.1 informing her that she proposed to marry the accused and that her husband, her sister and her brother in law asking
Page 20 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
PW.1 to get the accused for talks to confirm the proposal that in the year 2014 or so the accused came to their house, and she asked about the proposal of the accused to marry PW.1 and that the accused gave rude answers and that he answered that since he loved Pw.1, they have to accept for marrying PW.1 and that the manner of answering was not impressive and the accused also in the course of answering alleged that they were forcing him to marry PW.1 and in fact they called him as they are like parents to PW.1 and that they expressed their opinion his rude behaviour is not acceptable and therefore, the accused left their house saying that they can do whatever they want and that subsequently, they convinced PW.1 and informed her that they were not acceptable for PW.1 marrying the accused. PW.1 also denied that she did not state before the police that on 19.08.2015 some person called her on phone and informed that an acid attack was made on PW.1 and that as PW.1 was in shock, the said person called and was giving information, that he informed her at that time that the incident took place at Srinagar Colony and that immediately, she informed her husband and other members of their family.
42.PW.6/Investigation officer in his cross-examination admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.P.1/Complaint that PW.1 suspects the accused and his associates attacked on her and stated that it is mentioned in
Ex.P.1/complaint that two persons followed her by two wheeler and they thrown a burning liquid over her. He admitted that PW.1 did not state be- fore him and not mentioned in Ex.P.1/Complaint that she saw the accused while throwing burning liquid on her and admitted that PW.1 did not men- tion in Ex.P.1/complaint and did not state before him that her sisters and brother in laws told her that they intend to talk to the accused regarding their marriage proposal and after they talked to the accused, the accused talked with them in a rude manner and they decided that the accused is
Page 21 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 not a match for her and further admitted that PW.1 did not mention in
Ex.P.1/Complaint and not stated before him that when she expressed that she does not want to marry him, the accused caught hold of her throat and pushed her to the wall. He admitted that PW.1 did not mention in
Ex.P.1/Com,laint and not stated before him that accused met her on the way and threatened her in a drunken state and also caused a threat and he would see how she can marry someone. He further admitted that PW.1 did not mention in Ex.P.1/Complaint and not stated before him that she stopped her vehicle to see what was poured on her vehicle and infact some part of the same also fell on her jacket, and smoke also came out from the rear side of the vehicle and her jacket and when she stopped there, some passers also noticed the same and told her that the liquid poured was like acid. He admitted that PW.2 did not state before him that she was informed by PW.1 that she proposed to marry the accused and when they met the accused, the accused answered with them in a rude manner and they were not impressed with him.
43.Here in the present case, there is no eye witness for the inci- dent. The evidence of PW.2 reveals that on 19.08.2015 some person in- formed her on phone that an acid attack was made on PW.1 and he is given information as PW.1 was in shock and further informed her that the incident took place at Srinagar Colony. It is only hearsay evidence. Except the sole testimony of PW.1, which is inconsistent in respect of material as- pects about the alleged commission of offences by the accused, there is no cogent, corroborative evidence on record to establish the nexus between the alleged incident and the accused. The evidence of PW.6/Investigation
Officer discloses that none of the witnesses examined by him stated that they have seen the accused while committing the offence. PW.6 admitted that there is no confession and recovery panchanama of the accused in
Page 22 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 this case and stated that the location of the accused as per the call data collected by them was in Bharat Nagar in between 8.07 to 8.32 P.M., on 19.08.2015 and on 18.08.2015 also sthe location of the accused was shown as Bharat Nagar Colony. In his chief-examination, PW.6 stated that on receipt of credible information on 22.08.2015 he proceeded to Bharat
Nagar, Kukatpally and arrested the accused. According to the prosecution and as per the evidence of PW.1, the incident took place on 19.08.2015 at about 8.00 P.M., near Ratnadeep Supermarket, Srinagar Colony. He stated that in Ex.P.1/Complaint, PW.1 has given the mobile number of the ac- cused. PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that none of the mobile num- bers mentioned by her in the statement recorded by the police belongs to the accused. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why eye witness had not been examined shortly after the incident, when PW.1 gave Ex.P.1/Complaint immediately after the incident.
44.Immediately after the incident, PW.1 was examined by the doc- tor/PW.5 and the evidence of PW.5 discloses that he had not seen any burnt cloth on her body at the time of treatment. PW.1 in her chief- exami- nation stated that before lodging complaint, since she sustained rashes, due to the incident, the police referred her to a private hospital at nearby place and at about 11 or 11.30 P.M., on the date of incident, she lodged
Ex.P.1/Complaint. PW.5/Doctor evidence reveals that on 19.08.2015 at 10.30 P.M., she examined PW.1 and she complained that she had a burning sensation on her back of the left shoulder and left leg and she also smelt some acid sensation from her and stated that no external injuries were found on her body. In the cross-examination, she stated that PW.1 directly came to their hospital for treatment and she was not referred by the police and stated that she has not seen any burnt cloth on her body at the time of treatment and she remember that PW.1 was wearing some sweater at
Page 23 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 that time. PW.6 in his chief-examination stated that on 19.08.2015, he re- ceived as report from PW.1 and he had examined PW.1 and recorded her statement and sent her to Tanveer Hospital, Kamalpuri Colony, Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad for medical treatment. Ex.P.5 is the Medico Legal Certifi- cate of PW.1 issued by PW.5, dated 19.08.2015. PW.5 evidence reveals that no external injuries are found on the body of PW.1. PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that she did not mention about the rashes ion
Ex.P.1/Complaint and did not state before police regarding the same and
MO.1 is not the Jacket which was worn by her on the date of incident and stated that MO.1 is belongs to her only, but it is not the one on which the acid was poured. The evidence of PW.6 reveals that on 19.08.2015 at the time of giving Ex.P.1/Complaint, PW.1 handed over him one black colour jacket i.e., MO.1 and it was seized by him in the presence of PW.4 and Jan- gaiah/LW.6 under cover of Ex.P.4/Seizure Report. Ex.P.9 is the FSL Report, which discloses that Item 1/Black Colour Jacket was analyzed and found to contain traces of Hydrochloric Acid, a corrosive chemical in it.
But the evidence of PW.1/victim itself discloses that MO.1 is not the jacket worn by her on the date of incident. It is clinching with the suggestion put to PW.1 that no acid was poured on her and no incident occurred as al- leged and she did not sustain any rashes due to the alleged incident.
45.The evidence of PW.1 discloses that from the year 2012 to 2015 till rejection of the marriage proposal by her elders, she and accused were in love with each other and prior to receiving threatening calls and the incident, as per Ex.P.1/Complaint, she received a message that the ac- cused was already married. She denied that the accused never harassed and followed her after his marriage and he never did so, even prior to the incident at any point of time and that, as he got married, she reitereated all false allegations against him while lodging Ex.P.1/Complaint and no
Page 24 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 complaint was lodged against the accused prior to Ex.P.1 as he never did any acts against her illegally and the contents of Ex.P.1 are all created for the purpose of this case, to harass the accused. The evidence of PW.6 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW.4 and PW.1, with regard to the seizure of MO.1 under cover of Ex.P.4/Seizure Report. In Ex.P.2/Rough
Sketch of scene of offence, there is no date and time and it does not con- tain the signature of the panch witness i.e., PW.3, to show that it was pre- pared in his presence. PW.3 admitted that first page of Scene of offence observation Panchanama does not contain his signature. The answers elicited in the evidence of PW.3 creates a doubt about the conducting of
Ex.P.7/Scened of Offence Observation Panchanama and Ex.P.2/Ex.P.8/Rough
Sketch, dated 20.08.2015.
46. It is settled law that the criminal jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless, otherwise proved, the person facing the trial would be deemed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charges against the accused is on the prosecution, but not on accused. Here in the present case, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the ultimate crime. When the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.9 and
MO.1 is put together, it is not corroborating with each other in respect of material aspects about alleged commission of offences under Sections 354, 354(D), 326(B) and 506 IPC by the accused.
47.For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs and when the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.9 and MO.1 is put to- gether, it could be seen that the prosecution failed to establish that the ac- cused assaulted or used criminal force on PW.1 intending to outrage her modesty and harassed her over phone and tried to outrage her modesty with indecent words of harassment and that he was stalking PW.1 on one
Page 25 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019 pretext or the other, as she denied his proposal for marriage and harassed her and on 19.08.2015, at about 8.00 P.M., he followed her, when she was returning her home near Ratnadeep supermarket, Srinagar Colony and thrown a burning liquid over her with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to PW.1 and committed criminal intimidation and threatned her to stop her singing or otherwise, to avenge her and kill her beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt can be given to the accused. The point is answered, accordingly.
MO.1/black colour Jacket shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time
48.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under
Sections 354, 354(D), 326(B) and 506 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted as per provisions of under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pro- nounced by me in the open Court on this the 4 th day of February, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : A.Shishira, Complainant and victim.
PW.2 : A.Manjeera, Witness and Sister of PW.1.
PW.3 : Alsan Kiran, Panch Witness for Scene of Offence Observation Panchanama and Rough Sketch.
PW.4 : P. Venkatesh, Panch Witness for Seizure Report.
Page 26 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
PW.5 : Dr. S.Naunihal Singh, Medical Officer.
PW.6 : S. Santhosham, SI of Police/Investigating Officer.
PW.7 : Ch. Jithender Reddy, SI of Police/Investigating Officer.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint, dated 19.08.2015.
Ex.P.2 : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P.3 : Signature of PW.3 in the Scene of Offence Panchanama, dated 20.08.2015.
Ex.P.4 : Seizure Report, dated 19.08.2015.
Ex.P.5 : Certificate issued by PW.5, dated 19.08.2015.
Ex.P.6 : FIR, dated 19.08.2015.
Ex.P.7 : Scene of Offence Observation Panchanama, dated 20.08.2015.
Ex.P.8 : Rough Sketch of Scene of Offence. (Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.8 are one and the same).
Ex.P.9 : FSL Report, dated 04.09.2015.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO-1 : Black Colour Jacket of PW.1.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Page 27 of 27 Judgment in S.C.No.88 of 2019
Page 1 of 28
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
SESSIONS JUDGE: HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. P.V.P.Lalitha Siva Jyothi, II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
SESSIONS CASE NO. 15 OF 2021
(in PRC No. 412 of 2019)
Committed by Sri D. Venkatesh, III Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Crime Number and Police Station368 of 2019 P.S., Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. A1) Smt. Azra Fatima, W/o. Mujeeb, Age 42 years, Occ: Government High School Teacher, R/o. H.No. 19-4- 8/53, Hashambad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
A2) Mohd. Azeemuddin @ Irfan, S/o. Late Mohd. Wahabuddin, Age 35 years, Occ: Junior Accounrtant Of- cer,R/o.H.No.19-4-8/53, Hashmabad,Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
A3) Smt. Arshiya Begum @ Afsha Begum, W/o. Mohd. Zaheeruddin, Age 28 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Towli Chowki, Hyderabad.
Name and description of the com-The State represented by Sub plainantInspector of Police, P.S., Chan- drayangutta, Hyderabad City. Prosecution conducted bySri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Addl. Public Prosecutor. Accused No.1 to 3 defended bySri. D. Raji Reddy, Learned Counsel
for the Accused No.1 to 3.
Offence chargedUnder Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC Plea of Accused No.1 to 3Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. . Finding of the Courtfound guilty for the offence punish- able under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC
ResultIn the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence pun- ishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are con- victed as per the provisions under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and the Accused No.1 to 3 are sentenced to
Page 2 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3) Three years each and shall pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/- each (Rupees Three Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec- tion 306 r/w 34 IPC and indefault of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprison- ment for a period of (2) Two Months each. The Remand period already undergone by the Accused No.1 to 3 shall be given set-off, as per provisions of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. Total fine amount is Rs.9,000/-.
00 This case is coming on 21.01.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State/Complainant and of Sri D. Raji Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.,
Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.368 of 2019 of P.S., Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad registered against the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
2.The case of the prosecution, against the Accused No.1 to 3 in brief is that the deceased/Smt. Mumtaz Fatima was the wife of LW.1/Mohd.
Abdul Kareem and LW.2/Mohd. Faiyazuddin is her son and the deceased along with her husband and children are living in a rental house belonging to the house owner/A.1 and the Accused No.1 to 3 No.2 is the brother and the Accused No.1 to 3 is the sister of A.1 and the Accused No.1 and 2 blamed the deceased stating that she had told to A.2’s previous co-tenants that spirits and ghosts were present in the beside portion, due to which the
Page 3 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 previous tenants were get panic and vacated the house within a short time and the A.1 demanded the deceased and her family to vacate from her house and on 21.09.2019, the Accused No.1 to 3 picked up quarrel with the deceased and A.1 abused her in filthy language, saying “Kal thak
ghar khali karna agar dhusra ghasr nai miletho marjao thel dalke”
and A.2 forced her to vacate the house and abused her “Behan ki lowdy”, due to which deceased felt insulted and humiliated with their words and the deceased has made dial 100 call and the LW.6/Police
Constable of P.S., Chandrayangutta, visited the residence of deceased, conducted enquiries, admonished the Accused No.1 to 3 and further asked the victim to come to P.S., on the next day morning to report the matter, but the deceased who was under mental depression, due to the abuses of
Accused No.1 to 3 persons, had vexed on her life and on the intervening night of 21/22.09.2019, the deceased poured kerosene on her at her residence and lit fire, due to which she sustained burns over her body, and due to heat of flames, she has shouted, thereupon, her husband/LW1 and son/LW.2 rushed and put out flames and got shifted her to Osmania
General Hospital for treatment and got admitted and when she was undergoing treatment, on receipt of medical information, the
LW.16/P.Praveen Kumar, Police Constable visited the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased, who was undergoing treatment and the
LW.14/Sri Kumar Vivek, learned IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad recorded the dying declaration of deceased and while undergoing treatment on 03.10.2019 at 0100 Hours the deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima succumbed to burn injuries and further, basing on the contents of statement of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima, LW.17/S.Venkatesh, Sub
Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 368/2019 under Head “Woman Burns” on 22.09.2019 at 0900 Hours and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, LW.17 visited the Osmania General
Page 4 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
Hospital, enquired the victim and recorded her detailed statement in which she corroborated the contents of FIR and later, LW.17 visited the scene of offence and made observation of the scene and secured the presence of
LW.7/Mohd. Bin Hamed and LW.8/Mohd. Rehan and conducted the Scene of offence Observation Panchanama and drafted rough sketch drawn on
Crime Detail Form and seized 1) Burnt green colour cloth, 2)Burnt pink colour cloth, 3) Burnt Black and white colour clothe, 4) 5 litre plastic empty kerosene bottle, 5) Burnt Match sticks and 6) Burnt hair sample in the presence of Lws.7 and 8 and secured the presence of Lws.1 to 5 i.e., Mohd.
Abdul Kareem, Mohd. Faiyazuddin, Smt. Huma Kanam, Amer and Mohd.
Abdul Jabbar, examined and recorded their detailed statements and the victim underwent treatment as inpatient for about 12 days and she succumbed to burns and died on 03.10.2019 at 0100 hours and on receipt of death intimation from the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, the
LW.17 has altered the Section of Law from “Woman Burns” to Section 306 r/w 34 I.P.C. and during course of investigation, LW.17 visited the Osmania
Mortuary and secured the presence of mediators LW.9/ Smt.Shahnaz
Begum and LW.10/Syed Dawood Ahmed and in their presence and also in the presence of LWs.1 to 4 i.e., Mohd. Abdul Kareem, Mohd. Faiyazuddin,
Smt. Huma Kanam, Amer, LW.17 conducted Inquest over the dead body of deceased and subjected for Post Mortem Examination and on requisition, the Medical Ofcer/LW.13/Dr. G.Venugopal Rao, Asst. professor, Osmania
General Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued P.M.E. Report and opined that the cause of death was due to “Burns” and after PME, dead body was handed over to her husband for funeral rites and he had examined LW.6/Sri Ranga Raju, Police Constable and recorded his detailed statement and while the investigation was in progress, on 11.10.2019 in the evening hours on credible information about the presence of Accused No.1 to 3 person A.2/Mohd.Azeemuddin @
Page 5 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
Irfan, LW.17/S.Venkatesh/SI of Police along with LW.16/P.Praveen Kumar,
Police Constable apprehended A.2 on 11.10.2019 at 1700 hours and brought him to Police Station and on interrogation, A.2 admitted his guilt and LW.17 secured the presence of two mediators LWs.11 and 12 i.e.,
Mohd. Bin Abdullah Saif and Sadiq Khan and recorded the confession of A.2 and effected his arrest and produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody and A.1 and A.3 have approached the Hon’ble Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and obtained anticipatory bail and as per the
orders, they surrendered before the learned C.M.M., Hyderabad. Thus, the
Accused No.1 to 3 have abetted the suicide of the deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima and are responsible for the cause of death and have committed an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Hence the charge.
3.This case was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 412 of 2019 by learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the Accused No.1 to 3 .
4.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3 , all the copies of docu- ments were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C by the committal Court. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad having found prima-facie case against the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and as the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the
Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad by following the due procedure contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
Page 6 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
5.The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has taken the case on file as S.C.No. 15 of 2021 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law. Accused No.1 to 3 are on bail.
6.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3 before this Court, the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
Accused No.1 to 3 were heard u/Sec. 226 of Cr.P.C. and on considering the material on record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., the charge under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. has been framed against the Accused No.1 to 3 and the same was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 out of 17 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 andMOs. 1 to 6, the details of which are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.
8.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence reflected in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they denied and reported no evidence on their behalf.
9.Heard arguments of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. D. Raji Reddy, Learned
Counsel for Accused No.1 to 3.
10.The point that arises for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. be- yond all reasonable doubt ?
POINT:
Page 7 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
11.To prove the charge under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused No.1 to 3 with a common intention picked up quarrel with their tenant/deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and demanded her and her family members to vacate their house and abused her in filthy language and on that the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima went into mental depression and vexed on her life and on 21/22.09.2019 in the mid night she poured kerosene on her and lit with fire and died while undergoing treatment in the hospital, beyond all reasonable doubt.
12.The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the father of Mohd.
Fiyazuddin/LW2 and Mumtaz Fatima/deceased was his wife and about 2 years back in his house at Hashamabad, Chandrayangutta deceased herself poured kerosene and lit fire and he was present in the house at that time and he was suffering from Peristalsis at that time and the neighboring ladies took his wife to Osmania General Hospital and on 22.09.2019 in the early hours, PW10/S.Venkatesh received a telephonic message from
Osmania General Hospital regarding admission of victim namely Mumtaz
Fathima, W/o. Md. Abdul Kareem, he instructed the LW-16/Police Constable to record the statement of the said victim and accordingly, LW16 went to
Osmania General Hospital and examined and recorded the Ex.P.11/
Statement of victim/Mumtaz Fathima on 22.09.2019 and he gave requisition to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the said victim/Mumtaz Fathima and LW-16 gave the statement recorded by him in their PS and basing on the statement, he registered a case in Crime No.
368 of 2018 under the head as “Women burns” and issued Ex.P12/FIR and sent copies to all the concerned and later, he visited the Osmania General
Hospital, Hyderabad and examined and recorded the statement of victim/Mumtaz Fathima and later, he visited the scene of offence at
Hashamabad i.e., residence of the victim and secured the presence of
Page 8 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
PW-5 and LW-8/ Md. Rehan and in their presence, he observed the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and seized MOs. 1 to 6 i.e., (1) Burnt green colour cloth (2) Burnt pink colour cloth (3) Burnt black and white colour cloth (4) 5 litres plastic empty kerosene bottle (5) Burnt matchstick and (6) Burnt hair sample under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW-5 and LW-8/ Md. Rehan panchas and he had examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and LW3/Huma Kanam and on 03.10.2019 at 01.00 hours, he received information from the Osmania
General Hospital about the death of the victim/Mumtaz Fathima and then he altered the section of law from “Woman burns” to Section 306 r/w 34
IPC and sent Alteration Memo to all the concerned and later, he visited the
Osmania Mortuary and secured the presence of LW9/Shanaz Begum,
LW-10/Syed Dawood Ahmed and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and referred the dead body for PME report and on requisition, PW-8 conducted a PME over the dead body of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and after PME, he handed over the dead body of the deceased to her husband. Ex.P8 is the PME report of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and on 11.10.2019 in the evening hours, he received credible information about the presence of A-2 and then he proceeded along with LW-16/P. Praveen Kumar to the Electricity Ofce,
Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad and apprehended A-2 and brought you to their police station and on interrogation, A-2 voluntarily confessed the offence and he secured the presence of LW-11 and PW-7 and in their presence A-2 voluntarily confessed the offence and he conducted confessional panchanama in their presence. Later, he arrested A-2 and produced before the court. A.1 and A.3 surrendered before Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court and are released on anticipatory bail vide
Crl.MP.No. 3687/2019, dated 18.10.2019 and after completion of
Page 9 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 investigation and after collecting necessary documents, he filed charge
before the court.
13.To prove the charge under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C, the prosecution altogether got examined 10 witnesses out of 17 listed witnesses and got markedExs.P.1 to P.14 and MOs. 1 to 6.
14.The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution are
Exs.P.1 to P14. Ex. P.1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3.
Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4. Ex.P.5 is the Crime Details
Form. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the Signatures of PW.7 son the Confession
Panchanama. Ex.P.8 is the P.M.E. Report. Ex.P.9 is the Requisition filed to record Dying Declaration. Ex.P.10 is the Dying Declaration recorded by
PW.9. Ex.P.11 is the Statement of the Victim/Mumtaz Fathima, dated 22.09.2019. Ex.P.12 is the FIR, dated 22.09.2019. Ex.P.13 is the Inquest
Report of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima, dated 03.10.2019. Ex.P.14 is the
Alteration Memo, dated 03.10.2019. MO.1 is the Burnt Green Colour Cloth.
MO.2 is the Burnt Pink Colour Cloth. MO.3 is the Burnt Black and White
Colour Cloth. MO.4 is the 5 Litre Empty Kerosene Bottle. MO.5 is the Burnt
Match Stick and MO.6 is the Burnt Hair Sample.
15.To establish the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C., the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 10. PW.1 is Mohd. Abdul
Kareem, Husband of deceased/ Mumtaz Fathima. PW.2 is Mohd. Abdul
Jabbar, Witness. PW.3 is Mohd. Faiyazuddin, Son of the deceased/ Mumtaz
Fathima, Witness. PW.4 is Amer, Witness. PW.5 is Mohd. Bin Ahmed, Panch
Witness for Scene of offence Observation Panchanama. PW.6 is Sri Ranga
Raju, Police Constable/Witness. PW.7 is Sadiq Khan, Panch Witness for
Page 10 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
Confession Panchanama. PW.8 is Dr. G.Venugopal Rao, Medical Ofcer.
PW.9 is Sri Kumar Vivek, learned Magistrate, who recorded the Dying
Declaration of deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and PW.10 is S.Venkatesh,
Investigating Ofcer.
16.The learned APP submits that the prosecution has clinchingly established the commission of the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C by the Accused No.1 to 3 through the evidence of PW1 to PW10 coupled with Ex. P1 to P14 and Mos.1 to 6against the Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the Accused No.1 to 3 are liable to be convicted.
17.Per contra, the learned Learned Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence U/Sec. 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubts and the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima was resided as a tenant in different localities and the landlords of the deceased/ Mumtaz Fathima wherever she resides as a tenant, gave complaints against her stating that she harassed them while she was their tenant and the learned Magistrate recorded the declaration of the declarant in English Language under Ex.P.10 and it is not the true translation of the statement given by the declarant and police foisted a false case against Accused No.1 to 3 to support the family members of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and the Accused No.1 to 3 never abetted the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima to commit suicide and the Accused No.1 to 3 are no way concerned for the death of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and they are entitled for benefit of doubt.
Page 11 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
18.Before discussing the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is expedient to read some of the important averments in
Ex.P.11/Statement of victim/Mumtaz Fathima recorded by P.C. 1789 of P.S.,
Chandrayangutta, basing on which, the present case is registered against the Accused No.1 to 3 is that “On 22.09.2019 at about 1.00 AM to 1.30
AM, her owner was called and said to leave from his house by using vulgar language and abused her and harassed her and thats why she consumed kerosene oil at home and her owner was harassing her since one month and immediately, her husband taken her to hospital and she is undergoing treatment and requested to take necessary action against her house owner.”
19.As seen from the record, the defacto complainant/PW.1 is the husband, PW.3 is the Son of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and eye witnesses to the incident, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.6 who are circumstantial witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.1 stated that about 2 years back in his house, the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima poured kerosene and set ablaze herself and he was present in the house at that time and he was suffering from peristalsis and the neighbouring ladies took his wife to Osmania General Hospital and after 10 to 12 days she was died. He further stated that he does not know the reason for his wife committing suicide. PW.3 deposed in his evidence that he know Accused
No.1 to 3 and they are the landlords of his father and stated and he does not know anything about the facts of this case.
20.PW.2 and P.W4 are the circumstantial witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed that they does not know anything about the facts of this case.
Page 12 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
21.PW.6/Police Constable is the circumstantial witness and his evidence discloses that on 21.09.2019 in the night he was doing patrolling duty along with Home Guard Driver and at about 9 P.M., he received a dial 100 call from Asmabad Area and immediately, they went there and there he received oral complaint from Mumtaz Fathima and she informed that her landlady was harassing her for non payment of rents and to vacate their house and further deposed that her landlady namely Azra Fathima and her brother Irfan were also present and stated that he advised them not to quarrel and it was night time and take time for payment of rent and come to their Police Station to give complaint if any. He further deposed that on the next day i.e., on 22.09.2019 at about 2 A.M., he received a phone call from their Police Station informing that the said Mumtaz
Fathima has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire and her husband shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment.
22.PW.5 is the panch witness for scene of offence Observation
Panchanama and he did not support the case of prosecution and stated that about 2 years back at about 10.00 or 10.30 A.M., the police called him along with LW8/Md. Rehan near his house and conducted crime detail form, but he did not observe whether the police have prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and later, the police obtained their signatures on
Ex.P.5/crime detail form. In the cross-examination he denied that the police also prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence in their presence and obtained their signatures
23.PW.7 is the panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure
Panchanama and he did not support the case of prosecution and stated that no panchanama was conducted and no body confessed any offence in
Page 13 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 his presence and he simply identified his Exs.P.6 and P.7 signatures on the confessional panchanama of A.2.
24.PW.8 is the Medical Ofcer, and he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he deposed that on 03.10.2019 at about 11.00 A.M., on the requisition given by P.S., Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, he conducted Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and found the following external injuries :
Antimortem Dermo-epidermal burns present over back of chest, abdomen, both the buttocks involving back of both thigh area upto knee, anterolaterally over right thigh area and about 50% of the total surface area involved in burnt and he opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to “BURNS” and the time of death was 03.10.2019 at about 1.00
A.M. Ex.P.8 is the P.M.E. Report issued by him, dated 03.10.2019.
25.PW.9 is the learned the then Magistrate, who recorded the
Dying Declaration of the deceased/Mumtaz Fatima W/o. Abdul Kareem in his evidence deposed that the declarant stated before him that about 10 months ago, she and her husband have taken the house of one Azra
Begum consisting of two rooms on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- and the said Azra Begum is having another house portion adjacent to the portion let out to the declarant and the said portion was let out to another tenant and about 15 days back, the said tenant had vacated the said house portion stating that spirits and ghosts are present in the said house portion and thereafter, said Azra Begum started harassing the declarant to vacate her portion alleging that she had instigated the said tenant to vacate the house portion and on 21.09.2019 in the afternoon hours, her sister Arshiya
Begum came to her portion and quarreled with her and demanded her to vacate the house portion and on the same day, at about 9:00 pm, the said
Page 14 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
Asra Begum and her brother Irfan came to her house and the said Asra
Begum abused her in the filthy language and threatened her to break the legs of her daughter and to forcibly vacate her portion and the said Irfan abused her as “Behan Ki Lauri” and Azra Begum and Irfan beat her with their hands and then Azra Begum said that at any cost, she should vacate her house even if she kill herself by pouring kerosene oil upon her and thereafter, they left and she informed the police by dialing 100 and thereafter, she poured kerosene oil upon her and lit fire to herself with a matchstick and box and her husband and children had rescued her and she said that said Azra Begum and Irfan are responsible for causing burnt injuries to her. Ex.P.10 is the Dying Declaration of the deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima, dated 22.09.2019.
26.PW.10 is the Investigation Ofcer and his evidence discloses with regard to issuance of FIR and investigation.
27.The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment, (ii) The intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly, the death of the deceased/
Mumtaz Fathima was not under normal circumstances. The evidence of
PW.8 and Ex.P.8/PME Report discloses that the cause of death of deceased/Mumtaz Fathima was due to “Burns” and the time of death is 03.10.2019 at about 1.00 A.M., in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.
28.In Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 730 in which Hon’ble Apex Court held that - “abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or
Page 15 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing – without a positive act on part of Accused No.1 to 3 to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence, It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. It was further held that to attract Sec. 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.”
29.In order to bring a case within the purview of Sec. 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abeted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
The intention of the Accused No.1 to 3 to aid or to instigate or to abete the deceased to commit suicide is a must for the particular offence under Section 306 IPC.
30.It is settled law that the Criminal Jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved, the person facing the trial would be presumed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charges against the Accused No.1 to 3 is on the prosecution but not on the Accused
No.1 to 3. The prosecution if fails to connect the act of the Accused No.1 to 3 with the ultimate crime where the material link constituting the offence
Page 16 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 are found missing, then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the Accused
No.1 to 3.
31.The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 submits that mere threatening words by the Accused No.1 to 3 does not amount to instigating the commission of suicide and mere uttering of abuses will not amount to provocation to commit suicide and relied on citations reported in 2019 (1)ALT (Crl)377 (T.S) between Koduri Bikshapathi and
others vs State of Talangana represented by its Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another wherein it was observed that “Presence of mens rea is concomitant of instigation and even the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea, to attract the offence, for suicide was not proximate to the quarrel;, though deceased has named them in the suicide note. Thus, on facts there is no offence under Section 306 IPC made out.”
32.Another citation reported in 2000(1) ALD(Crl) 59 (AP)
between V.Adinarayana and another vs State of Andhra Pradesh
wherein it was observed that “Abetmenthas been defined in Section 107
IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of harassment
Page 17 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.”
33.Another citation reported in 2004 CRL. L.J. 2718 between
P.Sreenivasulu, Appellant vs State of A.P., Respondent, wherein it was observed that “I am of the considered view that abuses cannot amount to abetment, unless something more is done in pursuance of the said act of abuses. I am also of the considered view that the present case does not fall under Section 306, I.P.C. as there is no abetment to commit suicide. In fact no charge has been framed and the Accused No.1 to 3 was not made aware of the offence for which he was tried. It is the duty of the
Court to make the Accused No.1 to 3 aware of the offence for which he is being tried, lest it may cause prejudice to the Accused No.1 to 3. If the
Court below feels that the case had been made out under Section 306,
I.P.C. it ought to have framed a charge under Section 306, I.P.C. and recorded the plea of the Accused No.1 to 3 and then proceeded with further trial, instead of giving punishment directly for the offence under
Section 306, I.P.C. Mere so, during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination the Accused No.1 to 3 was not questioned regarding the alleged offence under Section 306, I.P.C. which caused prejudice to the Accused No.1 to 3.
In this case PWs. 1 to 3 stated that it is a stove accident. The dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate shows that because of the abuses of the Accused No.1 to 3, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene over herself and setting fire. In fact there is no abetment to commit suicide. I am of the considered opinion that uttering of abuses will not amount to provocation to commit suicide and it does not constitute abetment. It is contended that after the police have given the requisition to record dying declaration, the case was registered. Hence, there is every possibility of
Page 18 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 anti-dating F.I.R. In my opinion, no offence is made out under Section 306,
I.P.C. and there is no need to advert to investigation aspect, as it loses much of its importance.”
The facts of the case are not similar to the present case on hand. Here in the present case, the prosecution case is based on two sets of evidence, namely 1) Dying Declaration and 2) oral evidence. In the
Dying Declaration itself, the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima had given fairly accurate account of the background leading to her suicide.
34.In Ex.P.10/Dying Declaration, recorded by PW.9/Judicial
Magistrate, the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima has clearly stated that “about
10 months back they had taken the house of Azra Begum situated in
Asmabad, Chandryangutta, Hyderabad, on rent and the adjacent portion was let-out to another tenant and about 15 days back, the said tenant vacated the house stating that spirits and ghosts are present in the said house portion and thereafter, the said Azra Begum started harassing her to vacate her portion alleging that she had instigated the said tenant to vacate the house portion and on 21.09.2019 in the afternoon, her sister
Arshiya Begum came and quarreled with her and demanded her to vacate the house portion and on the same day at about 9.00 P.M., the said Azra
Begum and her brother Irfan came to her house and Azra Begum abused her in filthy language and threatened her to break the legs of her daughter and to forcibly vacate her portion and the said Irfan abused her as “Behan
Ki Lauri” and Azra Begum and Irfan bet her with hands and the said Azra
Begum told that at any cost, she should vacate her house, even if she kills herself by pouring kerosene oil upon her and thereafter, they left and she further stated that she informed police by dialing 100 and thereafter, she poured kerosene oil upon her and lit fire with a match stick.”
Page 19 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
35.The evidence of PW.6/Police Constable reveals that while he was doing patrolling duty on 21.09.2019 in the night at about 9.00 P.M., he received a dial 100 call from Asmabad area and immediately, they went there and he received oral complaint from the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima that her landlord is harassing her for non Payment of rents and to vacate their house and the Hazara Fatima and Irfan i.e., A.1 and A.2 were also present. In Ex.P.10/Dying Declaration also she has stated that on 21.09.2019 she informed police by dial 100 call. PW.6 further deposed that on 22.09.2019 at 2.00 A.M., he received a phone call from their Police
Station informing that the said Mumtaz Fathima has attempted suicide by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire and her husband shifted her to
Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment.
36.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 submits that the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima was in the habit of harassing the landlords/ owners wherever she resides and the different landlords of deceased/
Mumtaz Fathima at Kalapathar and Mailardevpally gave complaints against the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima stating that she was harassing them while she was their tenant and the I.O also admitted in his cross-examination that the different owners of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima at Kalapathar and Mailardevpally gave complaints against her stating that she was harassing them while she was their tenant and therefore, Ex.P.10/Dying
Declaration cannot be relied on without any corroboration and she gave false statement against Accused No.1 to 3.
37.Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1/Husband of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima in how many places they resided as tenants and as to why they vacated the houses. Nothing is elicited in the cross-
Page 20 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 examination of PW.10/Investigation Ofcer as to how many landlords/ owners gave complaints against the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and their particulars alleging that the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima was harassed their landlords/owners wherever she resided and how many cases were registered against the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima.
38.The evidence of PW.10/Investigation Ofcer is corroborating with the evidence of PW.5 about conducting of Ex.P.5/Crime Detail Form,
dated 22.09.2019. Ex.P.13 is the Inquest sReport of the deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima, dated 03.10.2019 and Ex.P.14 is the Alteration memo, dated 03.10.2019 and he deposded that he seized Mos.1 to 6 i.e., MO.1 is the
Burnt Green Colour Cloth. MO.2 is the Burnt Pink Colour Cloth. MO.3 is the
Burnt Black and White Colour Cloth. MO.4 is the 5 Litre Empty Kerosene
Bottle. MO.5 is the Burnt Match Stick and MO.6 is the Burnt Hair Sample are seized from the scene of offence under cover of Panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and LW.8/Mohd. Rehan.
39.The other contention of the defence is that the deceased/
Mumtaz Fathima was tutored by her husband/PW.1 before she gave statement in Ex.P.11 before police and Ex.P.10/Dying Declaration before the Magistrate. But what is the necessity for PW.1 or enmity between him and the accused No.1 to 3 to do tutoring to his wife/deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima to give false statement against Accused No.1 to 3. As seen from the record, PW.1 did not support the case of prosecution and he resiled from his earlier statement. He deposed for the first time that too in the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel that on his tutoring the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima gave a statement to police and before the
Magistrate. It is clinching with the suggestion put to him that he is
deposing falsehood to help the accused.
Page 21 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
40.PW.9/learned Magistrate in his cross-examination deposed that when he went to the hospital, there were attendants present near the declarant and he did not find out about the relation of the said attendants to the declarant. But nothing was elicited in the evidence of PW.9 that the husband of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima/PW.1 was present at the bed of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima and that she was tutored by him before she gave statement to the Magistrate under Ex.P.10/Dying Declaration.
41.The Dying Declaration is relevant under Section 32 of Indian
Evidence Act as an exception to hear-say evidence. The principles on which, Dying Declarations are admitted that it is believed that a man on his death bed never tells a lie. Ordinarily, a person on the verge of his passing away from this world, however, desperate, criminal or lier he may be throughout his life, but his/her end is in sight under the constraints of his conscience to speak out the truth, he will not lie, so as to falsely frame up and get convicted and to sentence an innocent person. Great sanctity is attached to the words of a dying man because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell lies, provided the court is satisfied that the deceased is in a fit state of mind to make the statement. Religious and moral ethics presumes that truth sits on the lips of a dying man.
42.Besides, if Dying Declarations are excluded, there would be miscarriage of justice in many cases, since, the victims being generally the only eye witnesses in serious crimes, the exclusion of his/her statement would leave us without a scrap of evidence. There is no law, nor rule which requires that the Dying Declaration cannot be accepted without corroboration. If answers to questions put are rational, then the person can be said to be in a fit state of mind.
Page 22 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
43.In Heeralal Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it was observed that :
The principle that “no man at the point of his death is presumed to lie. A man will not meet his maker with lie in his mouth” is based on sound public policy. If the Dying Declaration inspires confidence, could be the sole basis for conviction.
44.In Ravi Chander vs State of Punjab reported in 1998 (9)
SCC 303 wherein it was observed that “the Magistrate being a disinte-rested witness and is a responsible Ofcer and there being no circumstance or material to suspect that the Magistrate had any animus against the accused or in any way interested for fabricating a Dying
Delcaration, question of doubt on the declaration recorded by the
Magistrate does not arise.
45.The Dying Declaration/Ex.P.10 had been recorded by a Judicial
Magistrate/PW.9 and the Magistrate had made a note that on the basis of
answers elicited from the declarant to the questions put, he was satisfied that the declarant/deceased/Mumtaz Fathima is in a fit disposing state of mind to made a declaration. Doctor had appended a certificate to the effect that the patient was conscious while recording the statement. There is nothing on record to show that anyone had influenced injured so as to wrongly involve the accused persons. The alleged complaints of harassing the landlords, cannot be said to be of such a degree of vanity or vengeance to motivate her to lead to involve them wrongly when anyone of her breath was going to be the last. There can be no reason not to accept the Ex.P.10/Dying Declaration given by the deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima.
Page 23 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
46.The latest legal position is that the evidence of Dying
Declaration can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration, if the Dying Declaration is not tainted by any of the infirmities. In Lallu
Bai Devchand Shah vs State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1972 SC
1776 wherein it was observed that “the person who records a Dying
Declaration must be satisfied that the dying man was making a conscious and voluntary statement with normal understanding.
47.Therefore, it is clear that if the statement of a dying man is made without any influence and it is found to be true and voluntary, no corroboration is required to act upon it. Here, the evidence of
PW.9/Learned Magistrate reveals that he had personally put preliminary questions to the declarant to ascertain her mental condition and considering the rational answers given by the declarant, he concluded that the declarant is in a fit state of mind to give her statement and he had obtained the certificate of the duty doctor regarding the mental condition of the declarant both before recording the dying declaration and after recording of her statement. The Duty Doctor certified that patient was conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind throughout recording of her statement/dying declaration.
48.In Ex.P.10/Dying Declaration, the declarant/deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima had given fairly accurate account of the background leading to her suicide. There is no reason to discard the dying declaration recorded by an independent witness i.e., P.W.9/the Judicial Magistrate. In Ex.P.11/ State- ment of the victim/deceased/Mumtaz Fathima, dated 22.09.2019, basing on which, the present case was registered and the evidence of PWs.6, 8 to 10 was corroborating in respect of material aspects about the commission
Page 24 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021 of offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC by Accused No. 1 to 3. There is evi- dence on record capable of suggesting that the Accused No.1 to 3 intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
49.For the reasons set-forth in the preceding paragraphs and in view of the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned counsel
for the Accused No.1 to 3 and when the evidence of PWs.5, 6, 8 to 10
coupled with Exs.P.5, 8 to 14 coupled with MOs.1 to 6 and put together, it corroborates with each other in respect of material aspects and shows that the A.1 to A.3 with a common intention harassed the deceased/Mumtaz
Fathima and demanded her to vacate their house and abused her in filthy language and on that the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima went into mental depression and vexed on her life and on 21/22.09.2019 in the mid night, she poured on her and set ablaze herself and was died while undergoing treatment in the hospital and the prosecution established the commission of offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC by Accused No. 1 to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.
MOs. 1 to 6 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.
50.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the of- fence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted as per the provisions under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Page 25 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
When I questioned the accused persons 1 to 3 with regard to the quantum of sentence,
A1 stated that :
A2 stated that :
A.3 stated that :
51.Heard the Accused No.1 to 3, the learned counsel for the
Accused and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on quantum of sentence.
The learned counsel for the accused submits that the remand period already undergone by the accused shall be given set-off and A.1 to A.3 are having small children and A.1 and A.2 are Government Employees and prays to take a lenient view. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no grounds to take a lenient view.
52.Taking the plea of the accused No.1 to 3 into consideration and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Accused
No. 1 to 3 and learned A.P.P., and with regard to nature of offence, I find that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view. Hence, the Accused No.1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3)
Three years each and shall pay fine amount of Rs.3,000/- each
Page 26 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
(Rupees Three Thousand only) for the offence punishable under
Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and indefault of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of (2) Two Months each. The Remand period already undergone by the Accused No.1 to 3 shall be given set-off, as per provisions of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. Total fine amount is Rs.9,000/-.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24 th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : Mohd. Abdul Kareem, Husband of deceased/ Mumtaz Fathima.
PW.2 : Mohd. Abdul Jabbar, Witness.
PW.3 : Mohd. Faiyazuddin, Son of the deceased/ Mumtaz Fathima, Witness.
PW.4 : Amer, Witness.
PW.5 : Mohd. Bin Ahmed, Panch Witness for Scene of offence Observation Panchanama.
PW.6 : Sri Ranga Raju, Police Constable/Witness
PW.7 : Sadiq Khan, Panch Witness for Confession Panchanama.
PW.8 : Dr. G.Venugopal Rao, Medical Ofcer.
PW.9 : Sri Kumar Vivek, learned Magistrate, who recorded the Dying Declaration of deceased/Mumtaz Fathima.
PW.10 : S.Venkatesh, Investigating Ofcer.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex. P.1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1.
Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2.
Page 27 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3.
Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4.
Ex.P.5 is the Crime Details Form.
Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 are the Signatures of PW.7 on the Confession Panchanama.
Ex.P.8 is the P.M.E. Report, dated 03.10.2019.
Ex.P.9 is the Requisition filed to record Dying Declaration.
Ex.P.10 is the Dying Declaration recorded by PW.9, dated 22.09.2019.
Ex.P.11 is the Statement of the Victim/Mumtaz Fathima, dated 22.09.2019.
Ex.P.12 is the FIR, dated 22.09.2019.
Ex.P.13 is the Inquest Report of the deceased/Mumtaz Fathima,
dated 03.10.2019.
Ex.P.14 is the Alteration Memo, dated 03.10.2019.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 is the Burnt Green Colour Cloth. `
MO.2 is the Burnt Pink Colour Cloth.
MO.3 is the Burnt Black and White Colour Cloth.
MO.4 is the 5 Litre Empty Kerosene Bottle.
MO.5 is the Burnt Match Stick
MO.6 is the Burnt Hair Sample.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Page 28 of 28 Judgment in S.C.No.15 of 2021
Page 1 of 24
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
SESSIONS JUDGE: HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. P.V.P.Lalitha Siva Jyothi, II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
SESSIONS CASE NO.461 OF 2019
(in PRC No. 15 of 2018)
Committed by Smt. Kshama Deshpande, VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Crime Number and Police Station272 of 2017 P.S., Reinbazar, Hyderabad. Name &description of the A1) Mohd. Majeed @ Chowki Majeed, accusedS/o. Mohd. Habeeb, Age : 21 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No. 18-7- 425/68/5, Road No. 1A, Bhavani Nagar, Hyderabad. A2) Syed Akber Ali, S/o. Syed Hyder Ali, Age : 19 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Matha Ki Khidiki, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. Name and description of the com-The State represented by Sub- In- plainantspector of Police, P.S. Reinbazar, Hyderabad. Prosecution conducted bySri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Addl. Public Prosecutor. Accused defended bySmt. M.Laxmi Raj Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused. Offence chargedUnder Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Finding of the Courtfound guilty for the offences punish- able under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC ResultIn the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted as per the provisions under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted as per the provisions under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused No. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of (2) Two
Page 2 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 years for the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w 34 IPC. The Accused No. 1 and 2 are further sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of (1) One Year for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period already undergone by the Accused No.1 and 2 shall be given set-off, as per provisions of Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.
This case is coming on 05.01.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State/Complainant and of Smt. M.Laxmi Raj, Learned Counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Rein
Bazar, Hyderabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.272 of 2017 of P.S., Rein
Bazar, Hyderabad registered against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2.The case of the prosecution, against the Accused No.1 and 2 in brief is that LW.1/M.Ramanjaneyulu, Police Constable working at P.S., Rein
Bazar and Accused No.1 and 2 are auto drivers and residing at Yakuthpura,
Hyderabad and the A.1 is having suspect sheet in the limits of Chaderghat
Police Station limits and both the accused persons are roaming at
Yakuthpura Railway Station and regularly taking ganja and accordingly, on 17/18.12.2017 in between 0200 Hours to 0230 Hours, while LW.1/
M.Ramanjaneyulu, Police Constable was performing patrolling duty in Patrol
Car-II along with LWs. 2 and 3 i.e., B.Bhanu Chander and Mir Kausar Ali
Khan, Police Constables, during the period due to late hours, they were clearing the passenger autos near Railway Station Auto Stand and
Page 3 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 meantime, Accused No.1 and 2 started arguing with LW.1 for removing of their auto and after argument the Accused No.1 and 2 left from the Auto
Stand and accordingly, Accused No.1 and 2 developed grudge on LW.1 and decided to attack on LW.1 for a chance and accordingly, on 19.12.2017 in the morning hours, while LW.1 was on duty and he was passing from East
Chandra Nagar towards Railway Station Yakuthpura and meantime,
Accused No.1 and 2 by saying that “you should not perform your duty in the limits of Police Station Rein Bazar” and picking argument each other, they threatened him with dire consequences that they will eliminate him, due to this argument raised and then immediately, Accused No.1 attacked on LW.1 with sharp weapon and meanwhile Accused No.2 also attacked with sharp weapon and stones and however, he managed to escape from their clutches and rushed to P.S., Rein Bazar and during the attack he received cut injuries on his both sides of neck and other parts of body and then immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for primary treatment vide MLC No.36591, dated 19.12.2017 and basing on the complaint of LW.1/M.Ramanjaneyulu, Police Constable, LW.12/C.Ramudu,
Sub-Inspector of Police, Reinbazar registered a case in Crime No.272/2017 for the offence under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC and during the course of investigation, LW.12 examined and recorded the statement of complainant and visited the scene of offence along with clues team and secured the presence of panchas LWs.5 and 6 i.e., B.Ashok Goud and Syed
Majid Ali, drafted crime details from and also drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and also examined Lws.2 to 5 i.e., B.Bhanu Chander, Mir Kauser
Ali Khan, Mohd. Jaffar and B.Ashok Goud and recorded their statements and while the investigation was in progress, on 19.12.2017 at 1125 hours on credible information that Accused No.1 and 2 are available at Naushad
X Road, Yakuthpura, LW.12 along with LWs.10 and 11 i.e., M.Sunil Kumar and Abhilash, Police Constables proceeded to the spot and apprehended
Page 4 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 the Accused No.1 and 2 and interrogated the accused persons and they admitted their guilt and he secured the presence of panchas LWs.6 and 7 i.e., Syed Majid Ali and Mohammed Ali and recorded the confessional statement of Accused No.1 and seized one knife and one shirt from the possession of Accused No.1 and also recorded the confessional-cum- seizure panchanama of Accused No.2 and seized one shirt and one knife from the possession of Accused No.2 under cover of Confessional
Statement-cum-Seizure Panchanama and arrested them and it came to know that Accused involved in 3 other crimes of different police stations and LW.12 received Medical Certificate of LW1 from LW.8/Dr. K.Rama
Krishna opining that the nature of injuries are simple in nature and on 09.04.2018, LW.12 received FSL Report from LW.9/Dr. G.Pandu, TSFSL,
Hyderabad. Thus the Accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence the charge.
3.This case was taken on file as P.R.C. No.15 of 2018 by learned
VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused.
4.On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2, all the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C by the committal Court. The learned VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad having found prima-facie case against the Accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and as the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the
Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad by following the due procedure contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
Page 5 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
5.The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has taken the case on file as S.C.No. 461 of 2019 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law. Accused No.1 and 2 are in judicial custody.
6.On appearance of Accused No.1 and 2 before this Court, the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
Accused No.1 and 2 were heard u/Sec. 226 of Cr.P.C. and on considering the material on record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., the charges under
Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. are framed against the Accused No.1 and 2 and the same are read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 out of 12 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and MOs.1 to 5, the details of which are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.
8.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence reflected in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they denied and reported no evidence on their behalf.
9.Heard arguments of Sri. Sk. Subhan Javeed, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor representing the State and Smt. M.Laxmi Raj, Learned
Counsel for Accused No.1 and 2.
10.The point that arises for determination is:
Page 6 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ?
POINT:
11.To prove the offences under Section 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused No.1 and 2 with a commons intention, on 19.12.2017 at about 8.10 A.M., at East Chandra
Nagar, towards Railway Station Yakuthpura, Hyderabad attacked on PW.1 with a sharp weapon/MOs. 3 and 4 with an intention to kill and obstructed him in discharge of his legitimate duties in the limits of P.S., Rein Bazar and beat him with stones, due to which, PW.1 received bleeding injuries beyond all reasonable doubt.
12.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2017 when PW.1 was on night duty in Rein Bazar PS, Hyderabad and while he was on patrolling duty, in the mid night between 2.00 to 2.30 AM, near Yakutpura
Railway Station, some people gathered and he instructed them to leave the premises and accordingly some of the people went away, but A1 and
A2 i.e., Majeed and Akber Ali questioned him as to why they have to leave the place and stated that they are the local people and threatened him as to how he will discharge his duties and to kill him. LW-2/B.Bhanu Chander and PW-2 were also present along with him and later A.1 and A.2 went away and on 19.12.2017 at about 8.00 AM, he and LW.2/B.Bhanu Chander and PW-2 were doing patrolling duty and at about 8:10 AM, when they were passing near Yakuthpura Railway Station and at that time A.1 and A.2 attacked on PW1 from backside with knives on his neck on left and right side and caused bleeding injuries and due to that he fell down and
LW.2/B.Bhanu Chander and PW-2 witnessed the same as they are along with him and PW.1 raised hue and cries and A.1 and A.2 fled away and
Page 7 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
LW.2/B.Bhanu Chander and PW-2 came to him and shifted him to Rein
Bazar P.S., and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and on 19.12.2017 at 9:30 am, PW.8 received a complaint from
PW.1 and basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No. 272/2017 U/s.
307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P.9/FIR and sent copies to all the concerned and he referred PW.1 to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and during the course of investigation, PW.8 examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and LW-2/Bhanu Chander and he visited the scene of offence and observed the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW-7 and LW-7/Md. Ali and prepared Ex.P10/Crime
Detail Form and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of the said panch witnessesdated 19.12.2017and on the same day, they received credible information about the presence of the Accused No.1 and 2 at Naushad X Road, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and then immediately he along with PW-6 and LW-11/Abhilash, constables reached the Naushad X
Road, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and found Accused No.1 and 2 and he apprehended them and brought them to their police station and on interrogation, A.1 and A.2 voluntarily confessed the offence and he secured the presence of PW-7 and LW-7/Md. Ali and recorded the confessional panchanama and in pursuance of the confession made by A.1 and A.2, he seized Mos.1 to 5 from the possession of Accused No.1 and 2 andlater, after completion of all the formalities, he arrested A.1 and A.2 and produced them before the court. After collecting Medical Certificate and
FSL report and on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and 2.
13.To prove the charges under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of
I.P.C., the prosecution altogether got examined 8 witnesses out of 12 listed witnesses and got markedExs.P1 to P12 and MOs. 1 to 5.
Page 8 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
14.The documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution are
Exs.P.1 to P12. Ex.P.1 is the Complaint, dated 19.12.2017 given by PW.1.
Ex.P.2 is the Statement of PW3 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3 is the Injury
Certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.5. Ex.P.4 is the Signature of PW.7 at Sl.
No. 1 on the Scene of offence Panchanama. Ex.P.5 is the Signature of PW.7 on the Rough Sketch of Scene of Offence. Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 are the
Signatures of PW.7 on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P.9 is the FIR, dated 09.12.2017. Ex.P.10 is the Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch, dated 19.12.2017. Ex.P.11 is the Relevant portion of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A.1 and A.2 and Ex.P.12 is the FSL Report, dated 12.03.2018. MO.1 is the Brown Colour Shirt belongs to PW.1. MO-2 is the chocolate colour shirt. MO-3 is the small knife yellow in colour. MO-4 is the small knife pink in colour and MO-5 is the Blue colour shirt.
15.To establish the offences under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 8. PW.1 is the
Complainant/Victim. PWs. 2 to 4 are the witnesses/Police Constables. PW.5 is the Medical Officer. PW.6 is the Police Constable who assisted the
Investigating Officer. PW.7 is the Panch Witness for Scene of offence
Observation Panchanama and Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama and
PW.8 is the Investigating Officer.
16.It is settled law that the Criminal Jurisprudence begins with the presumption that unless otherwise proved, the person facing the trial would be presumed to be innocent. The burden to prove the charges against the accused is on the prosecution but not on the accused. The prosecution if fails to connect the act of the accused with the ultimate
Page 9 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 crime where the material link constituting the offence are found missing, then the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
16.The evidence of PW.1 discloses that on 17.12.2017 when he was on night duty in Rein Bazar PS, Hyderabad, while he was on patrolling duty, in the mid night between 2.00 to 2.30 AM, near Yakutpura Railway
Station, some people gathered and they instructed them to leave the premises and accordingly some of the people went away, but A1 and A2 i.e., Majeed and Akber Ali questioned them as to why they have to leave the place and stated that they are the local people and threatened them as to how they will discharge their duties and to kill them. LW-2/B.Bhanu
Chander and PW-2 were also present along with him and later A.1 and A.2 went away and on 19.12.2017 at about 8.00 AM, he and LW.2/B.Bhanu
Chander and PW-2 were doing patrolling duty and at about 8:10 AM, when they were passing near Yakuthpura Railway Station and at that time A.1 and A.2 attacked on PW1 from backside with knives on his neck on left and right side and caused bleeding injuries and due to that he fell down and
LW.2/B.Bhanu Chander and PW-2 witnessed the same as they are along with him and PW.1 raised hue and cries and A.1 and A.2 fled away and
LW.2/B.Bhanu Chander and PW-2 came to him and shifted him to Rein
Bazar P.S., and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and he handed over the blood stained shirt to the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by him dated 19.12.2017. MO-1 is the Brown Colour
Shirt given by him to the police.
17.The evidence of PW-2 discloses that on 17.12.2017 from 8:00
PM to 8:10 AM on 18.12.2017, he was on duty in PS Rein Bazar and he was the driver of patrolling vehicle of PS Rein Bazar and on that day in the mid night at about 2.00 AM when they were on patrolling duty along with PW.1
Page 10 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 and LW-2 near Yakuthpura Railway Station parking place, about 10 to 15 persons gathered there and they asked them to leave that place and accordingly, except 2 persons, others left the place and among them, 2 persons namely Majeed and Akber did not leave the place and they are present in the court hall and A.1 and A.2 are the said 2 persons and they threatened PW.1 and LW-2 stating that how they can discharge their duties and they are local people and went away and on 19.12.2017 at about 8:00
AM when he, PW.1 and LW-2 were on duty and when they came near
Yakuthpura Railway Station and he was checking his patrolling vehicle and at that time, he heard some sound from PW.1 and then he saw PW.1 and found A.1 and A.2 beat the PW.1 with knives on either side of the neck and caused bleeding injuries and then he and LW-2 tried to catch A.1 and A.2, but they fled away and then they shifted the PW.1 to the PS and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment and later, he came to their PS and gave Ex.P1/complaint.
18.PW-3 did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and he does not know A.1 and A.2 and no incident occurred in his presence.
19.The evidence of PW-4 discloses that on 19.12.2017 at about 8:00 am, he was on duty near Yakuthpura Railway Station and PW.1, PW2 and LW-2 were doing patrolling duty and his patrolling car was stopped and at that time, 2 persons came and attacked on PW1 and the said 2 persons were present in the court hall and A1 and A2 are the said 2 persons who attacked on PW.1 with knives and caused injuries on either side of his neck and they tried to catch them, but A.1 and A.2 fled away and later they shifted the PW.1 to the police station and from there, he was shifted to
Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.
Page 11 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
20. The evidence of PW5 discloses that on 19.12.2017 in the morning hours, PW.1 was brought by one Police Constable alleged to have been beaten by unknown person in the Yakuthpura Railway Station and then he has examined PW.1 and found the injuries, 1) Lacerated wound on the right side of th neck, 2) Lacerated wound on the left ear to sternum and stated that the above said two injuries are simple in nature and caused by a sharp object and the age of injuries are fresh in nature. Ex.P3 is the
Injury Certificate of PW.1 issued by him, dated 19.12.2017.
21.The evidence of PW6 discloses that while he was on duty at about 11:25 AM, LW-12/SI of Police received credible information about the presence of the A.1 and A.2 at Naushad X-Road, Yakuthpura and on that
LW-12/SI of Police along with him, LW-11 another constable and their staff proceeded to the spot and found A.1 and A.2 and on interrogation, they revealed their names and then they apprehended A.1 and A.2 and produced them before SHO, Rein Bazar.
22.PW.7 is the Panch Witness for the scene of offence observation panchanama and confessional-cum-seizure panchanama. But he did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that no panchanama was conducted, no rough sketch was drawn and A.1 and A.2 did not confess anything and nothing was seized in his presence and he only identified his signatures i.e., Ex.P4 and P.5 on the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence and Ex.P.6 to P.8 on the confession-cum- seizure panchanama.
23.PW8 is the Investigation Officer and his evidence discloses with regard to the issuance of FIR and investigation and PW.6 assisted PW.8 in investigation.
Page 12 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
24.The learned APP submits that the prosecution has clinchingly established the commission of the offences under Sections 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC by the Accused No.1 and 2 through the evidence of PW1 to PW8 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 & MO.1 to MO.5and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy, believable to bring home the guilt of the accused as per the charges framed against them beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the Accused No.1 and 2 are liable to be convicted.
25.Per contra, the learned Counselfor the Accused No.1 and 2 submits that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the
Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 307, 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and no incident occurred as alleged on 17/18.12.2017 and PW.1 gave false complaint against Accused No.1 and 2 and PW.1 was not on duty on the dates of the alleged incident and the accused No.1 and 2 never confessed the offence and MOs. 2 to 5 are not seized from the possession of A.1 and A.2 under cover of Ex.P.11/
Panchanama and they are planted for the purpose of this case and
Accused No.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the alleged incident and the Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.
26.PW.1 who is the complainant and victim in his cross- examination stated that Ex.P.1/Complaint was given by him in English
Language and he made entry in General Diary of P.S., with regard to their patrolling duty and stated that he has not filed any document to show that he was on duty on 19.12.2017 and stated that there is no mention in Ex.P.1 with regard to entry in G.D. about their patrolling duty. He stated that he mentioned names of A.1 and A.2 in Ex.P.1/Complaint, but he does not know
Page 13 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 that the police did not mention the names of A.1 and A,2 in his statement.
He further stated that on 19.12.2017 i.e., at the time of incident, it was not busy and stated that in the morning the place of incident is not busy upto 9 A.M. He further stated that he did not mention the descriptive particulars of the knives used by A.1 and A.2 in Ex.P.1/Complaint and about the names of the Police Constables who accompanied him to the Hospital, but he stated their names before the police. He further stated that the
Head Constable or A.S.I of Police will record in the G.D. about the movements or any incident happened during duty time. He denied that no incident occurred on 17/18.12.2017 and as such, he did not give any complaint to the Police on that day and A.1 and A.2 did not commit any offences as alleged.
27.PW-2 and PW.4 are the witnesses. PW2 in his cross- examination stated that his superior officer will enter the duty timings in
General Diary of their Police Station, and if any incident happened during their duty period, they will inform to their superior officer and he will enter the same in General Diary of their Police Station. He stated that the threatenings alleged to be made by the A.1 and A.2 on 17.12.2017 was entered in their General Diary and at the time of incident on 17/18.12.2017, no public gathered as it is a mid night and at the time of incident i.e., on 19.12.2017, he, PW.1 and LW.2/B.Bhanu Chander were at a distance of 10 to 12 feet and there is no public at the time of incident. He deposed that A.1 and A.2 attacked on PW.1 at about 8.15 A.M., but he does not know the exact time and after hearing the voice of PW.1, he saw him and went to near PW.1 and saw A.1 and A.2 attacked PW.1 with knives. He further stated that he did not state before police about the descriptive particulars of the knives used by A.1 and A.2 and immediately, after the incident, they took PW.1 to their police station and within 5 minutes, they
Page 14 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 shifted him to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and later, he went away. He further stated that he has not filed any proof to show that he was on duty on 17/18.12.2017 and on 19.12.2017 and with regard to shifting of PW.1 to Osmania General Hospital. He denied that no incident occurred on 17/18.12.2017 and on 19.12.2017 and they gave false complaint against A.1 and A.2 and he was not on duty on the dates of alleged incident.
28.PW.4 in his cross-examination stated that he does not know whether the Investigation Officer filed any proof to show that he was on duty on 19.12.2017 and stated that he did not state before the police about the descriptive particulars of the knives alleged used by the accused and denied that he did not state before police about the identity particulars of the accused persons and stated that the scene of offence is not a busy area and less people were present as the incident occurred in the morning time and he was at a distance of 50 to 100 metres from the scene of offence and stated that PW.1 was in the Police Station for about 5 to 10 minutes and later, he was shifted to Hospital and he did not accompany him to the hospital. He denied that no incident occurred as alleged and the Accused No.1 and 2 did not commit any offences and that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of his superior officers.
29.PW.5 is the Medical Officer and in his evidence he deposed that on 19.12.2017 in the morning hours PW.1 was brought by one Police
Constable alleged to have beaten by unknown persons in Yakuthpura
Railway Station and he had examined PW.1 and found 1) lacerated wound on the right side of the neck, 2) lacerated wound on the left ear to sternum. He opined that the above said injuries are simple in nature and caused by the sharp object and the age of injuries is fresh in nature. Ex.P3
Page 15 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 is the Injury Certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.5. He stated in his cross- examination that the above said injuries might also be possible by self infliction.
30.PW.8 Investigation officer in his evidence deposed that he had not obtained the signature of PW.1 in Ex.P.9/FIR and admitted that in
Ex.P.9/FIR, it is mentioned that A.1, A.2 and others attacked on PW.1 and it is mentioned in Ex.P.9 that PW.1 sustained injuries on the neck and other parts of the body and stated that Ex.P.1/Complaint was given by PW.1 only.
He stated that he had examined only PW.1 in their Police Station, but not
PWs. 2 to 4 and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence at about 10.30 A.M. and along with him, 4 other staff members accompanied him to the scene of offence and they were at the scene of offence for about one hour. He denied that the scene of offence is a busy area and stated that there are no CCTV Camera at the scene of offence and he had not examined any independent witnesses at the scene of offence at the time of Ex.P.10/Scene of offence Panchanama. He stated that there is no documentary evidence about the alleged commission of offence by A.1 and
A.2 and he had not collected any audio recording and there is no mention in Ex.P.1/Complaint about the descriptive particulars of weapon used by
A.1 and A.2 on PW.1. He stated that PW.1 did not state before him about handing over of his shirt i.e., MO.1 to him. He denied that he did not seize
MOs.2 to 5 from the possession of A.1 and A.2 under cover of Ex.P.11/
Panchanama and they are planted for the purpose of this case and they did not visit the scene of offence and he prepared Ex./P.10 in the Police Station and PW.7 and L.W11/Mohd. Ali are their stock witnesses and falsely implicated A.1 and A.2 in this case and they are no way concerned with the present case.
Page 16 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
31.Regarding the offence U/s. 332 IPC, it says that “Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”. For the offence U/s.
332 IPC, it is important to make out that hurt U/s. 332 IPC, was to deter the public servant from discharging of his public duty.
32.When the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 coupled with
Exs.P.1, P.3, P.9 to P.12 and Mos.1 to 5 is put together, it is corroborating with each other in respect of material aspects about the commission of offence under Section 332 r/w 34 I.P.C. and clearly shows that on 19.12.2017 at about 8.10 A.M., at the scene of offence situated towards
Railway Station Yakuthpura, Hyderabad, Accused No.1 and 2 attacked on
PW.1 with a sharp weapon and obstructed him in discharge of his legitimate duties. The Medical evidence is also corroborating with the ocular evidence and clearly establishes that A.1 and A.2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1. The guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 was established by the testimony of the witnesses. Except minor discrepancies, nothing is elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony or what is the necessity for them to depose falsehood against Accused No.1 and 2 before the court of law.
33.With regard to the offence U/s. 506 IPC. Section 506 IPC which reads as under:
Page 17 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 “Whoever voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person to do anything which that person is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do anything which he is legally entitled to do, by inducing or attempting to induce that person to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered by some act of the offender an object of Divine displeasure if he does not do the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to do, or if he does the thing which it is the object of the offender to cause him to omit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both”.
34.Criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 IPC as under:
“Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
35.As laid down in Section, the threat in offence of criminal intimidation must be directed against the person reputation or property and secondly, the threat must be made with intent either to cause alarm or to cause victim to do an act which he is not legally bound to do or to abstain from an act which he is entitled to perform.
36.PW.1 clearly deposed in his evidence that on 17.12.2017 in the night time, while they were on patrolling duty at the scene of offence near
Yakuthpura Railway Station, some people gathered and he instructed them to leave the place and accordingly, some of the people went away, but A.1
Page 18 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 and A.2 questioned them as to why they have to leave the place and they are the local people and threatened them as to how they will discharge their duties and to kill them and LW.2/Bhanu Chander and PW.2 were also present along with him at that time. PW.2 evidence is also corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 and shows that A.1 and A.2 threatened PW.1 and
Bhanu Chander/LW.2 stating that how they can discharge their duties and they are the local people and later, they went away. The evidence of
Pws.1, 2 and PW.8/Investigation Officer coupled with Ex.P.1/Complaint clearly reveals that the threat was directed by both the accused towards person and reputation of PW.1/Police Constable and causing him to abstain from an act he was entitled to perform. Thus the offence U/s. 506 IPC are made out. The contention of the learned defence counsel is that no independent witness was examined and the scene of offence is a busy locality and the failure on the part of Investigation Officer to examine any independent witness at the scene of offence is fatal to the case of prosecution. But according to the prosecution, the alleged first incident i.e., 17/18.12.2017 in the mid night was occurred and again the incident on 19.12.2017 occurred at 8 A.M. According to the prosecution, the scene of offence is not busy in the morning upto 9 A.M., and therefore, no public gathered at that time and there are no CCTV Cameras at the scene of offence. Under the circumstances, it could be seen that at the time of incident, the presence of the public may be less at the place of incident as it was happened in the mid night and on morning hours. Therefore, merely because, the prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses, would be no ground to discard the evidence of prosecution, if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy.
37.In order to prove the offence U/s. 307 IPC, it is essential to prove that there was intention or knowledge coupled with some overt-act
Page 19 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 in execution of such intention/knowledge. The injury sustained, the manner of assault and the weapon used are all relevant factors. The onus lies on the prosecution that the accused has caused an act with intention/knowledge or under such circumstances that if by that act death was caused, he would be guilty of murder. In order to prove the offence
U/s. 307 IPC, essential mensrea to constitute the said offence has to be proved. The foremost ingredient of Section 307 IPC are the intention or knowledge which must precede the act attributed to the accused.
38.The Supreme Court observed that in attempt to murder cases
Section 307 of the IPC, the intention has to be ascertain from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of injury caused.
39.But nothing was elicited in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, what is enmity between PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 and the motive for the ac- cused Nos. 1 and 2 to kill PW.1, and that they caused hurt to PW.1 with the intention/knowledge to cause his death. The evidence of PW-5/Medical Offi- cer coupled with Ex.P3 discloses that PW.1 received1) lacerated wound on the right side of the neck, 2) lacerated wound on the left ear to sternum and he opined that the both the said injuries received by PW.1 are simple in nature.
40.The learned counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2 submits that
PW.1 demanded money from A.1 and A.2 and they refused for the same and as such, PW.1 foisted a false case against A.1 and A.2 and the injuries are self inflicted and the Medical Officer also deposed in his cross-examina- tion that the above said injuries might also be possible by self infliction.
Simply because, PW.1 is a Police Constable, it cannot be said that he gave false complaint by inflicting injuries on his body. Except putting sugges-
Page 20 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 tions to PW.1, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that PW.1 demanded money from A.1 and A.2 and they refused for the same and as such, he foisted a false complaint against A.1 and A.2. The contention of the learned defence counsel that the injuries sustained by PW.1 are self in- flicted injuries is not tenable, it cannot be said that the injuries sustained by PW.1 are self inflicted injuries, simply because PW.5/Medical Officer de- posed that the said injuries sustained by PW.1 are also possible by self in- fliction.
41.For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs and when the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 coupled with Ex.P.1, P.3. P.9 to
P.12 and Mos.1 to 5 is put together, it is corroborated with each other in re- spect of material aspects about the commission of offences under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC by Accused No.1 and 2 and the prosecution estab- lished the commission of offences under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to establish the commission of of- fence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC by Accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is to be given to them for the of- fence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and therefore, the Accused No.1 and 2 are liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and are to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.
MOs.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
42.In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted as per the provisions under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable
Page 21 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted as per the provisions under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
When I questioned the accused persons 1 and 2 with regard to the quantum of sentence,
A1 stated that
A2 stated that
43.Heard the Accused No.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the Ac- cused and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on quantum of sentence.
The learned counsel for the accused submits that the remand period al- ready undergone by the accused shall be given set-off and they may be re- leased. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no grounds to take a lenient view.
44.Taking the plea of the accused into consideration and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence, I find that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view. In the result, the Accused No. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of (2) Two years for
Page 22 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019 the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w 34 IPC. The Accused No. 1 and 2 are further sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for a period of (1)
One Year for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Remand period already undergone by the Accused No.1 and 2 shall be given set-off, as per provisions of Sec.
428 of Cr.P.C.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 : M.Ramanjaneyulu/Police Constable/Complainant/Victim.
PW.2 : Meer Kausar Ali Khan/Home Guard/witness.
PW.3 : Mohd. Jaffar/Witness.
PW.4 : B.Ashok Goud, Police Constable/witness.
PW.5 : Dr. K.Rama Krishna, Medical Officer.
PW.6 : M.Sunil Kumar/Police Constable, assisted the Investigating Officer.
PW.7 : Syed Majeed Ali/Panch Witness for Scene of offence Observation Panchanama and Confessional Statement-cum-Seizure Panchanama.
PW.8 : C.Ramudu/ Sub-Inspector of Police/Investigating Officer.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint, dated 19.12.2017 given by PW.1.
Ex.P.2 : Statement of PW3 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.
Page 23 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
Ex.P.3 : Injury Certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.5.
Ex.P.4 : Signature of PW.7 at Sl. No. 1 on the Scene of offence Panchanama.
Ex.P.5 : Signature of PW.7 on the Rough Sketch of Scene of Offence.
Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 : Signatures of PW.7 on the Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama.
Ex.P.9 : FIR, dated 09.12.2017.
Ex.P.10 : Scene of Offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch,
dated 19.12.2017.
Ex.P.11 : Relevant portion of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A.1 and A.2.
Ex.P.12 : FSL Report, dated 12.03.2018.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO-1 : Brown Colour Shirt belongs to PW.1.
MO-2 : Chocolate Colour Shirt.
MO-3 : Small Knife Yellow in Colour.
MO-4 : Small Knife Pink in Colour.
MO-5 : Blue Colour Shirt.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
Page 24 of 24 Judgment in S.C.No.461 of 2019
1 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:
HYDERABAD
Wednesday, the 12th day of January, 2022
Present: Smt. P.V.P.Lalitha Siva Jyothi, II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. `
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 of 2019
From what court this appeal is: preferred XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
MagistratecumSpecial Court for the
trial of Video Piracy Cases Court, Hyderabad.
Case Number in that court :C.C. No.293 of 2011
Criminal Appeal Number Crl. Appeal No.518 of 2019
Name and description of the :Appellant No.1) M.Preetham mahesh, Appellant/AccusedS/o. Prasada Rao, MS,, Age 36 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Plot No.6, Near AOC Gate, West Marredpally, Hyderabad. – A.1.
Appellant No.2) M.S. Prasad Rao, S/o. Late M.Venkateshwar Rao, Age : 65 Years, Occ: Retired Private Employee, Plot No.6, Near AOC Gate, West Marredpally, Hyderabad. A.3.
Appellant No.3) Smt. Nirupama Teja, W/o. Ramesh, Age 40 Years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Flat No. 204, Lakkamma Nilayasm, Opp. To Radhika Colony, West Marredpally – 26. A.4.
Name and description of the :The State through Inspector of Police, Respondent/ComplainantP.S. Women Police Station, Begumpet, Secunderabad.
The law and sentence passed by the: trialAppellants 1 to 3/Accused Nos. 1, 3 and court.4 are found guilty for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 Months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment of 6 Months each for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry 2 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
Prohibition Act. Further, Accused No.s. 1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 Months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 Months each for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also Section 498A of I.P.C. shall run concurrently. Out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.60,000/ shall be applied in the payment of compensation to PW1 after appeal time is over for her prosecuting the case and also the injury caused to her due to the offences under ?Section 357(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether confirmed, modified or reversed:In the result, this Appeal is allowed by and if modified, the modificationsetting aside the Judgment of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan MagistratecumSpl. Court for the trial of Piracy Cases, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 293/2011, dated 18.05.2019 and the appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted as per the provisions 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall stands cancelled and fine amount if already paid by the appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall be returned to them after expiry of appeal time.
DATE ON WHICH
Presentation of Appeal : 03062019 Filing of Appeal : 04062019 Notice issued to respondent to appear : 07062019 First appearance of Appellant : 12092019 Hearing of Appeal : 07012022 Judgment in the Appeal : 11012022
This Criminal Appeal is coming on 07012022 for hearing before me and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, lower court record, and considering the arguments of Sri B.Venkateshwar Reddy, Counsel for Appellant Nos. 1 to 3/Accused Nos, 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Sk. Subhan Javeed, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent/Complainant this court has delivered the following:
3 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
The Appellants 1 to 3/Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 preferred this appeal under
Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction in C.C.No.293 of 2011 passed by the learned XV Additional Metropolitan MagistratecumSpecial Court for the trial of Video Piracy Cases Court, Hyderabad, dated 18.05.2019, under which Appellants 1 to 3/Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are convicted for the offences under Section 498A of
I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 Months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment of 6
Months each for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, Accused
No.s. 1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 Months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6
Months each for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also Section 498
A of I.P.C. shall run concurrently and out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.60,000/ shall be applied in the payment of compensation to PW1 after appeal time is over for her prosecuting the case and also the injury caused to her due to the offences under Section 357(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and the factual matrix lending to the filing of the appeal is as follows:.
3.Appellants and Respondent are hereinafter referred to as accused and prosecution. respectively as arrayed in learned trial court.
4.The case of prosecution in brief, can be narrated as follows:
The accused demanded a dowry of Rs. 20,00,000/, household articles, 40 tulas of gold and house plot in Hyderabad for the engagement and marriage of PW1 with
Accused No.1. On the day of engagement on 05042009, PW2, one Chandrasekhar 4 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 (Friend of PW2) and one Bharath (brother of PW1) gave Rs.5,00,000/ to Accused No.1 and in laws (A.2 and A.3) at the house of accused and that PW2 clarified the accused that he can give only Rs.15,00,000/ and the gold will be given after demise of PW.1's mother in equal shares for PW.1, her two brothers and one sister and the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 agreed for the same. After marriage, PW.1 joined at her matrimonial home where all the accused used to reside and Accused Nos.2 and 4 asked PW1 when will PW.2 is going to pay the remaining Rs.10,00,000/ towards dowry and threatened that unless the said amount was paid, her life would be with troubles and on one night after drinking liquor, all the accused questioned PW1 about the nonpayment of the remaining dowry and sarcastically commented that her parents are hizras to whom PW1 is a daughter and
PW1 was made to stand from 10 P.M. to 4 A.M. in the early hours for the reason PW.2 did not pay the remaining dowry of Rs.10,00,000/ and afterwards, in the midst of
September and October, 2009 PW2 along with his son came to accused and questioned them about the harassment and when the accused asked the remaining dowry, PW2 requested some more time and PW.1 was forced not to touch any clothes and articles purchased for her marriage saying that PW1 has no right to touch them and on 14.12.2009 PW.1 handed over a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/ to Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the
Accused No.1 beat PW.1 on her stomach for not bringing the gold ornaments of her mother which were put on by PW1 during Srimantam Ceremony and that on 23.07.2010 when PW.1 was with 7 months of pregnancy, the accused necked her out in the morning hours demanding the remaining part of the dowry and gold articles and accused threatened PW.1, if she do not bring the same Accused No.1 would give divorce to her and the PW.1's qualification certificates, clothes and gold articles were kept by Accused
No.1 to 4 and never returned to her and all the accused demanded the remaining dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ on the day of cradle ceremony on 26.01.2010 and PW.2 asked some more time and when Accused No.1 did not take back PW.1, PW.2 convened an elders 5 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 panchayath on 21.09.2010 to which Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of Accused
No.4 attended and the accused abruptly walked out of the panchayath saying PW.1 is no more required by them, and that on 27.06.2010, the Accused No.1 rang up PW.1 at 2.30
A.M., in the night, abused her in filthy language in intoxication state continually and since then the accused did not turn up or did not talk with her and on 22.12.2010 at 11
A.M., PW.1 lodged a Report with the Police W.P.S., Begumpet, on the basis of which
PW.4 registered a case in Crime No.138/2010 and investigated. After completion of investigation PW.4 and afterwards supplementary charge sheet was filed by PW.7 against the accused.
5.Cognizance was taken by the Court of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad for offence under Section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C and Sections 4
and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 09.03.2011 and numbered as C.C.No. 293 of 2011.
6.On appearance of accused No.1 to 4, trial court has furnished copies of documents as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and examined accused under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges have been framed against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of I.P.C and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.During the course of trial, prosecution got examined as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. Ex.P.1 is Complaint of PW.1, Ex.P.2 is Telugu text of phone voice conversation between accused and complainant, Ex.P.3 is Mobile voice conversation between accused and servant. Ex.P.4 is Wedding Card, Ex.P.5 is Cash
Memo, Ex.P.6 is Cash Memo, Ex.P.7 is Bank Account Statement, Ex.P.8 is 65B 6 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
Certificate, Ex.P.9 is EMail Conversation, Ex.P.10 is F.I.R., Ex.P.11 is Engagement
Photographs two in number, Ex.P.12 is Letter addressed by the Inspector of Police, to
ICICI Bank, dated 28.09.2012, Ex.P.13 is APP message by the Additional Director
General of Police, CID, AP, Hyderabad, dated 23.07.2012 and Ex.P.14 is Office copy of
PW.1's application, dated 18.06.2012 to the Additional D.G.P (Crimes).
8.After closure of evidence of prosecution, Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they denied and reported no oral evidence and got marked
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7. Ex.D.1 is A portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1, Ex.D.2 is
A portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1, Ex.D.3 is Certified copy of MC.
No.17/2012 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad (5 folios), Ex.D.4 is Certified copy of evidence of PW2 in FCOP No.257/2016 (4 folios). Ex.D.5 is Certified copy of PW1 evidence in HMOP No.257/2016 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad. Ex.D.6 is
Certified copy of PW1 evidence in MC. No.50/2015 on the file of Family Court,
Secunderabad (8 folios) and Ex.D.7 is Certified copy of MC. No. 17/2012 on the file of
Family Court, Secunderabad (5 folios). The case against Accused No.2 was abated on 18.08.2017, as she reported died.
9. The trial court on conclusion of trial and on hearing both sides, Appellants 1 to 3/Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were found guilty for offence under Section 498A of
I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the trial court and they are convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6
Months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default they shall suffer Simple
Imprisonment of 6 Months each for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. Further, Accused No.s. 1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 6 7 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
Months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default they shall suffer Simple
Imprisonment for 6 Months each for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal
Code. Both the sentences for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also Section 498A of I.P.C. shall run concurrently. Out of the fine amount recovered,
Rs.60,000/ shall be applied in the payment of compensation to PW1 after appeal time is over for her prosecuting the case and also the injury caused to her due to the offences under Section 357(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly, fine amount was paid by Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
10.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the Appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 preferred to submit contending interalia that the
Judgment of the trial court is erroneous against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the same needs to be set aside and that the trial court solely depending upon chiefexamination of PWs. 1 and 2, convicted the Appellants without considering the contradictions, omissions and developments of the case and solely relied upon the evidence of PW.2 in respect of alleged payment of dowry Rs.5,00,000/, and demand of Rs. 20,00,000/ and the evidence of PW1 is contradicting PW.2 in respect of payment of alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ and alleged demand of Rs. 20,00,000/ and there is no corroboration of evidence among the witnesses particularly PWs.1 and 2 and the trial court failed to appreciate crucial admission by PW1 that from the date of marriage PW.1 lived happily for ten months with her husband and the lower Court did not appreciate the admission of PW.1 that PW.2 went to the house of Accused to handover the dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ to Accused No.3 in the presence of Accused No.1, 2 and 4, that her brother and Mr. Chandrasekhar accompanied PW.2 and PW.2 deposed that he alone went to the house of Appellant to pay the alleged dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ and failed to appreciate the admission of PW.1 that she was happy with the accused for 8 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 ten months from 06.05.2009 from the date of marriage and the trial Court appreciated the Ex.P.9 email allegedly sent to Accused No.1 in 10 folios and the lower Court ought to have appreciated the fact that Accused No.1 did not respond to the allegations and he never admitted them and there is no demand nor any admission sending of demand nor any admission and sending of Email Ex.P.9 is one side out from PW.2 to implicate
Accused No.1 and Ex.P.9 ought not to have taken into consideration and the prosecution has not examined brother of PW.1 and Mr. Chandrasekhar in connection with the alleged payment of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ to accused and the trial Court misconstrued the financial capacity of PW.2 as to payment of alleged dowry and just because, PW.2 is a public sector company employee, he was capable of paying dowry and the trial Court failed to consider the fact of Judgment in FOP NO. 257/2016 granting divorce between
PW.1 and Accused No.1 by the learned Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that PW.1 and PW.2 misused the court process by filing various frivolous cases against the Accused and the trial Court failed to take the cognizance of a fact that how PW.1 misusing the Court process and to demoralize the accused by making false allegation of illegal relationship to Accused No.4 and the trial Court erroneously marked Ex.P.8 and Ex.P9 against the law of evidence and the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the charge sheet is filed on 09.03.2011 and after more than 2 years additional charge sheet is filed by Women Police C.I.D. along with alleged Ex.P.9 which is created for the purpose of this case and no expert is examined to prove Ex.P.9 and the trial Court misconstrued that there is a demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to PW.1 and the trial Court should have seen that the investigation is lacking in the material particulars and should have seen that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to harass the complainant at any time and absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever to convict the appellants Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and prays to allow the appeal by set asiding the 9 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
Judgment of the learned XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and to acquit the appellants. Hence the appeal.
11.Heard Sri B.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for Appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 and of Sri Sk. Subhan Javeed, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Perused the record.
13. Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court in its Judgment dated 18.05.2019 in C.C. No.293 of 2011 is sustainable?
Points No.1 and 2:
14.As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that A.1 is the husband of
PW.1 and their marriage was performed on 06.05.2009. It is an admitted fact that the appellant No.1 filed FCOP 257/2016 on the file of learned Family Court Judge,
Secunderabad for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act against the defacto complainant./respondent herein for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the same was allowed by dissolving the marriage, dated 06.05.2009 held between the appellant No.1/petitioner and defacto complainant/respondent. Being aggrieved by the order in FCOP No. 257/2016, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in FCA 22/2019. During the
pendency of appeal, both the parties compromised the matter before the Hon’ble High
Court for the State of Telangana in FCA No. 22/2019 dated 22.07.2021. The Hon’ble
High Court while disposing of the matter, the Hon’ble High Court directed the parties as follows:
10 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 “(i)The respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/ directly into the
Savings Bank Account of the daughter of the parties on or before 21.08.2021. the details of the bank account shall be furnished by learned counsel for the appellant directly to the counsel for the respondent in the course of the day.
(ii)The respondent shall furnish to the respondent a copy of the Sukanya
Samriddhi Yojana Policy taken out by him in favour of the daughter within one week from today. He undertakes that he shall continue paying the annual premium of
Rs.60,000/ towards the said policy, till the same is due for maturity.
(iii)The respondent undertakes that he punctually shall pay the school fee of the daughter, who is presently in Class VII, till she clears Class XII.
4.The respondent shall file an affidavit giving an undertaking that he shall abide by the terms of settlement, as recorded above, within one week with a copy to learned counsel for the appellant.
5.In view of the aforesaid settlement, the appellant has agreed that besides the present case, she shall withdraw all the cases filed by her against the respondent, details whereof have been furnished in the affidavit dated 12.07.2021, within two weeks from today. She shall also render all necessary cooperation to the respondent, as and when he files an application for seeking quashing of the criminal cases filed by her against him.
6.The present appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid settlement along with the pending applications, if any, while making it clear that if either party reneges therefrom, then besides the aggrieved party seeking restitution in all manners, the 11 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 defaulting party shall also face contempt of court proceedings.”
15.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in pursuance of the said terms of compromise, the first appellant paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ into the account of defacto complainant on 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and 20.08.2021 and also complied the other conditions and as per the terms of settlement, the defacto complainant shall withdraw all the cases pending before the trial courts including the present appeal by cooperating with the appellants and the offences levelled against the appellants are under Section 498A IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act and as the offence under
Section 4 of D.P. Act is non compoundable, they prayed for the disposal of the appeal on merits.
16.The defacto complainant was present before the court on 03.09.2021 and filed a Memo stating that the appellants have deposited in total an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/ into her account on 17.08.2021, 18.08.2021 and 20.08.2021 and stated that the appellants have fulfilled all the conditions of the Hon’ble High Court for the
State of Talangana in FCA 22/2019, dated 22.07.2021 and she also withdrawn the cases pending before the trial courts. On 27.09.2021 the defacto complainant was present and the written arguments submitted by the appellants counsel and the learned APP requested time for submitting the arguments and on 07.01.2022, the learned APP submitted written arguments and submitted that the prosecution has established the offence under Section 498A IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act against the appellants and the trial court rightly came to a conclusion and the judgment of the trial court is on correct lines and it need not be interfered.
17.But as seen from the record, both the parties have compromised the matter
before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in FCA No. 22/2019, dated
12 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 22.07.2021. The Memo filed by the defacto complainant reveals that the appellants and the defacto complainant have fulfilled the conditions of the Hon’ble High “Court for the
State of Telanga ain FCA 22/2019, dated 22.07.2021 and the defacto complainant is not interested to proceed further and prays that the appeal may be closed. Since the offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act is not compoundable, they prays the court for the disposal of the appeal on merits. Admittedly, the appellants and defacto complainant compromised the matter and I find that there is no force in the submission of the learned APP, as the parties have already compromised the matter before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in orders, dated 22.07.2021 in FCA. 22/2019.
18.The learned Magistrate observed in the Judgment that on assumptions and presumptions, the penal law cannot be invoked unless the specific demand of dowry was established. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no corroboration of the evidence between PW1 and PW2 with regard to the alleged payment of dowry or demand of dowry. The prosecution did not examine either the brother of PW1 or the friend of her brother to corroborate the PW1 to establish the alleged payment and demand of dowry. Moreover, the matter was ended in terms of compromise as per orders of the Hon’ble Highs Court for the State of Telangana in FCA.
22/2019, dated 22.07.2021.
19.For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP and in view of the terms of settlement made between the appellants and the defacto complainant before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana as per orders in
FCA. 22/2019, dated 22.07.2021 and without prejudice to the rights of both the parties and in the interest of the justice, this appeal has to be allowed by setting aside the
Judgment of XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan MagistratecumSpl. Court for the trial of 13 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
Piracy Cases, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 293/2011, dated 18.05.2019. Accordingly, the point No.1 and 2 are answered.
20. In the result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the Judgment of XV
Addl. Chief Metropolitan MagistratecumSpl. Court for the trial of Piracy Cases,
Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 293/2011, dated 18.05.2019 and the appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted as per the provisions 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall stands cancelled and fine amount if already paid by the appellants/Accused No.1, 3 and 4 shall be returned to them after expiry of appeal time.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of January, 2022.
II ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
14 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019 15 Crl.A.No.518 of 2019
Order Record 7 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/88/2019 | P.S Banjarahills vs Mohd.Hymadh | 04 Feb 2022 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/15/2021 | PS Chandrayangutta vs A1 Azra Fathima | 24 Jan 2022 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/461/2019 | PS Rein Bazar vs Md.Majeed @ Chowki Majeed | 18 Jan 2022 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CRLA/518/2019 | M.Preetham Mahesg and Others vs WPS,Begumpet | 12 Jan 2022 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/415/2014 | PS Bavani Nagar vs Mohd.Laiq @ Abdullah | 07 Jan 2022 | Judgment | Convicted |
| SC/147/2019 | PS Panjagutta vs Pagadalla Shsheela | 16 Dec 2021 | Judgment | — |
| SC/120/2019 | PS Mirchowk vs Syed Zakia Sulthana | 29 Oct 2021 | Judgment | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi handled?
Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi has handled 7 court orders since 2021 at HYD, Criminal Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 1 orders per month.
What types of cases does Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi hear?
Based on available records, Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) at HYD, Criminal Court Complex.
Where is Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi currently posted?
Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi is posted as I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge at HYD, Criminal Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.
Are judgments by Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi dispose cases?
Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi disposes approximately 1 cases per month, based on 7 orders handled over their tenure at HYD, Criminal Court Complex.
Since when is Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi serving?
Smt P V P Lalitha Siva Jyothi has been serving at HYD, Criminal Court Complex since 2021.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2022 — May 2022I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge
-
Aug 2021 — May 2022II Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge · 7 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court