Dismissed

Shaik Mohd. Haneef, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC9 Oct 2012CRLA/1455/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a murder appeal under Section 302 IPC, the High Court examined circumstantial evidence regarding a marital dispute where the appellant, a husband, allegedly killed his wife. The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the accused killed the deceased by stabbing due to suspected infidelity, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine.

Shaik Mohd. Haneef, Vs The State of A.P. — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

Criminal Appeal No. 1455 of 2008

¶3

Judgment: (Per Sri N.V. Ramana, J)

¶4

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2008, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in S.C. No. 536 of 2007, convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

¶5

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased, namely Shaik Jaheedha Begum is the wife of the accused. She is the daughter of Shaik Gadiyarala Mohammed Asha Begum (L.W.3) and sister of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed one year prior to the incident. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.18,000/-, one and a half tula gold ring and a gold chain to the accused and four tulas of gold ornaments were presented to the deceased by her parents. After the marriage, the deceased joined the company of the accused at Nandyal. During her stay there, when the deceased dressed up neatly, the accused used to tease her saying whether she got any paramour. When the deceased brought this to the notice of her family members, her sisters, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and her mother, Shaik Gadiyarala Mohammed Asha Begum (L.W.3), reprimanded the accused and asked him to change his behaviour and lead peaceful marital life with the deceased.

¶6

Thereafter, the accused got addicted to bad vices. To meet the expenditure of his bad vices, he sold the gold ornaments of the deceased. He shifted his residence from Nadigadda to Saleemnagar

¶7

and stayed in the house of P.W.3 by paying rent of Rs.500/- per month. The accused, however, did not change his behaviour and harassed the deceased physically and mentally. Vexed with the attitude and behaviour of the accused, the deceased left to her parents house. There, P.Ws. 1 and 2 held panchayat, where the elders pacified the matter and advised the couple to lead peaceful life. Thereafter, 15 days prior to the incident, the deceased again came back to her parents house and complained about the harassment made by the accused. On the next day, the accused came to the house of the parents of the deceased, abused and beat her. One week thereafter, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and persuaded her to send the deceased with him and promised that he would look after her properly, and then P.W.1 sent the deceased with the accused.

¶8

On 26.05.2007 at about 2.00 a.m., P.W.3 on hearing the cries of the deceased, he along with Mohammed Asadulla Khan (L.W.5) rushed to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying on the cot with bleeding injuries on her stomach and the accused standing near the cot with a knife in his hand and on seeing them ran away. P.W.3, 4 and 5 and Mohammed Asadulla Khan (L.W.5), tried to catch hold of the accused, but could not. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others came and saw the dead body of the deceased. On the same day, P.W.1 presented report to the Station House Officer, Nandyal II Town Police Station, and based on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No. 95 of 2007 under Section 302 I.P.C. and issued FIR. Thereafter, P.W.9-Inspector of Police, took up investigation. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators, and prepared inquest report and rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized the broken bangle piece and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem

¶9

examination. At the hospital, he seized the saree, blouse and petty coat of the deceased. P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, having conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued post mortem certificate stating that the death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple ante-mortem injuries in the stomach and intestines.

¶10

On 27.05.2007, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.9 along with his staff and mediators, proceeded to Meenakshi Lodge, Nandyal and arrested the accused. The accused confessed to the commission of the offence in the presence of the mediators. The accused having confessed to the commission of the offence, led them to Kundhu river bridge and produced the dagger from the bushes. P.W.9 after recording the confession statement of the accused, seized the knife used by the accused in the commission of the offence under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, he filed charge sheet stating that the accused who harassed the deceased physically and mentally and having killed her, is liable to be punished for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 I.P.C.

¶11

The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶12

The prosecution, to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.Os. 1 to 5. On behalf of defence, none was examined, but Exs. D1 to D6 were marked.

¶13

The learned Sessions Judge, having appreciated the evidence on record, found the appellant-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

¶14

Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the appellantaccused, filed the present appeal.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the judgment and other material available on record.

¶16

Now the point that arises for consideration in this criminal appeal is whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

¶17

P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the brother and sister of the deceased, P.W.3 is landlord of the accused, P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased, P.W.5 was the neighbour of the accused, P.W.6-Village Revenue Officer, is mediator to the inquest panchanama, P.W.7-Village Revenue Officer, is mediator to the arrest and confession and recovery panchanamas, P.W.8 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased harassed her physically and mentally and killed her. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, we shall examine whether the prosecution could prove the chain of circumstances that lead to the only conclusion that the accused has caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution to prove its case that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, harassed her physically and mentally and caused her death examined P.Ws. 1 to 5.

¶19

P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and P.W.2. He stated that the marriage of the deceased performed with the accused about two years and three months back. At the time of marriage, they paid cash of Rs.18,000/- as dowry and presented gold chain, gold ring to the

¶20

accused and gold ornaments weighing about four tulas to the deceased. After marriage, they lived happily for one month, and thereafter, the accused used to consume liquor and suspecting the fidelity of the deceased beat her. The accused sold two tulas of gold present to the deceased to meet his expenses for consuming liquor. As the deceased was not in a position to bear the harassment, she attempted to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. Whey they told that they would file police complaint, the parents of the accused pacified the matter and promised to look after the deceased properly. The parents of the accused told them that the accused was not going to work regularly and that they arranged a separate residence for him and the deceased at Saleemnagar. That now and then when he visited the house of the accused, the deceased used to tell him that the accused suspecting her fidelity was beating her. Unable to bear the harassment, about nine months back the deceased came to their house. Thereafter, he called P.W.2 and held panchayat in the presence of elders, where the accused was advised to look after the deceased well. The accused then took the deceased to his house. After living happily for 15 days, the deceased came back to their house. At about 4.00 p.m., on the next day, the accused came to his house in intoxication condition and suspecting the deceased beat her and kicked her indiscriminately. When himself and P.W.2 questioned him, the accused left his house. One week thereafter, the accused came to his house and promised to look after the deceased properly and took her to his house. After one week, at about 3.00 a.m., P.W.3 came to his house and informed him that the accused murdered the deceased by stabbing her with a knife and when he tried to catch hold of him, he ran away. Then himself, P.W.2 and his mother went to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of the deceased with

¶21

stab injuries on her abdomen. Then, he got drafted Ex.P1-complaint by P.W.4 and filed the same before police. The accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased murdered her. He was present when the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and that the police recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he stated to the police that 15 days prior to the incident, the deceased came to his house and on the same day at 7.00 p.m., the accused also came to his house. That prior to the accused beating the deceased at his house, neither himself nor P.W.2 tried to prevent the deceased. That one week thereafter, the accused alone came to his house and took the deceased with him. He stated that he is an illiterate and can only put his signature. That P.W.4 prepared the complaint to his dictation. That they reached the house of the accused at 3.45 a.m. and he lodged Ex.P1-complaint with the police at 6.00 a.m.

¶22

P.Ws. 2, who is the sister of the deceased corroborated the version of P.W.1 in all respects.

¶23

P.W.3 was the landlord of the accused. He stated that the accused was a tenant in a room in the house bearing No. 25/396/6 belonging to them since nine months prior to the murder of the deceased. In the beginning, the accused and the deceased lived amicably and after some days, the accused started consuming liquor and harassed the deceased by abusing her. Due to the harassment, the deceased left to her parents house and the accused brought her back. Again 15 days prior to the incident when the accused again started harassing the deceased, she left to her parents house and again the accused brought her back. On 25.05.2007, he closed his shop at about 8.30 p.m. and came to his house, and at that time, when he was standing in front of his house, he saw the accused and the deceased going to their house. When he questioned them as to from

¶24

where they were coming, they stated that they went to a park and returning to the house. The deceased came to his house and had a talk with his mother and then went to her house. Thereafter, he went to a movie and returned back to his house at about 12.30 or 1.00 p.m. and went to bed. After one hour, he heard some hue and cry from the house of the accused. Then himself and his family members woke up and himself and his father went to the house of the accused and knocked the doors to know as to what happened. Then the accused opened the doors and came out with a knife in his hands. Due to fear, he went to some distance. Meanwhile, P.W.5, who is a retired Assistant Sub Inspector, Shaik Shafi (L.W.8) and others, who reside nearby came to the scene of offence, and when they tried to apprehend the accused, he threatened them showing the knife and ran away. Thereafter, himself and his sister, entered into the house of the accused and saw the deceased lying with bleeding stab injuries on her abdomen. He stated that M.O.1 is the knife, which he saw in the hands of the accused. After the incident, he went to the house of P.W.1 on his motorbike and informed about the incident to him. After about 45 minutes, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others came to the house of the accused. At about 6.00 a.m., the accused went to the police station and lodged the complaint. In his cross-examination, he admitted that P.Ws. 1, 2, Shaik Gadiyarala Mohammed Asha Begum (L.W.3), Mohammed Asadulla Khan (L.W.5) and P.W.4 are his distant relatives. He stated that he never interfered with the disputes between the accused and the deceased and that he does not know the reason for the disputes between them. The police examined him at the time of holding inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he stated to the police as in Ex. D4 that he saw the accused and the deceased returning from the park at about 10.00 p.m. on 25.05.2007.

¶25

P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased. He stated that one month after the marriage, the accused under intoxication harassed the deceased and therefore, she attempted suicide by consuming pesticide. He stated that nine months prior to the incident, the accused along with the deceased shifted to Saleem Nagar and started living in a rented house. There again when the accused started harassing the deceased a panchayat was held at the house of P.W.1 in the month of January, 2007. After some days, the deceased went to the house of the accused. About 15 days prior to the incident, when he went to the house of P.W.1, the accused came under intoxication came there and beat the deceased indiscriminately and when P.W.2 intervened and questioned as to why he was beating the deceased, the accused left the place. One week thereafter, he came to know that the accused went to the house of P.W.1 to bring the deceased to his house. He further stated that on the day of the incident at about 3.00 a.m., while he was at his house, they received a phone call saying that the accused murdered the deceased. Then himself, his mother, P.W.1 and his family members went to the house of the accused in an auto and saw the dead body of the deceased with stab injuries on her abdomen. At about 6.00 a.m., himself and P.W.1 went to the police station, where P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint, which was drafted by him to the dictation of P.W.1 and that the police recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that he prepared Ex.P1complaint near the house of the accused and it took 20 minutes for him to prepare Ex.P1. By 6.00 a.m., he completed the preparation of Ex.P1. That P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1-complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police. By that time, the police did not come to the scene of offence, and that they came at about 9.00 a.m. He admitted that he did not state as in Ex.D6 that P.W.1 got drafted the complaint by somebody

¶26

and filed before the police.

¶27

P.W.5 is a resident of Saleemnagar, who retired as Assistant Sub Inspector. He stated that since nine months prior to the incident, the accused used to live in the house of Mohammed Asadulla Khan (L.W.5). The accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased used to pick up quarrels. That on 25.05.2007, at about 9.00 p.m., while he was standing in front of his house, he saw the accused and the deceased coming from somewhere and going into their house. On the same night, at about 2.00 a.m., he heard some hue and cry from the house of the accused. Then, he came out of the house and saw P.W.3, Mohammed Asadulla Khan (L.W.5) and others were standing in front of the house of the accused. He saw the accused coming out of the house with a knife in his hand saying that he killed the deceased by stabbing her, and while he was trying to flee away, himself, P.W.3 and Shaik Shafi (L.W.8) tried to catch hold of the deceased by chasing him to some distance. That P.W.3 informed about the incident to the relatives of the deceased and that the police examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that on 25.05.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., he saw the accused and the deceased going to their house. He stated to the police that the accused at about 9.30 p.m. returned from his work to his house. He stated that once when the accused was shouting at the deceased in front of his house, he pacified the matter and sent them into the house. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about the accused harassing the deceased, the deceased leaving to her parents house and thereafter, the accused getting back her to his house. He stated that himself and L.W.5 are neighbours since 1993.

¶28

From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are brother and sister of the deceased, it is evident that the accused suspecting the fidelity of

¶29

the deceased, used to harass the deceased physically and mentally. The deceased unable to bear the harassment of the deceased, once attempted suicide by consuming suicide. Then the parents of the accused pacified the matter and promised that the accused would look after the deceased properly. Thereafter, they sent the deceased to the house of the accused. After some days, the accused shifted his residence to Saleem Nagar, Nandyal. Even there, the accused harassed the deceased, and the deceased informed the harassment to P.W.1. Nine months prior to the incident when the deceased unable to bear the harassment of the accused, came back to the house of P.W.1, he called P.W.2 and arranged a panchayat in the presence of elders, and the accused promised that he will look after the deceased and took her to his house. Thereafter, 15 days prior to the incident, while P.W.2 was in the house, the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 as children were having vacations. On the next day evening, the accused under intoxication, suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, beat her and kicked her indiscriminately. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 questioned the accused as to why he was beating the deceased, the accused left the house. Again one week prior to the incident, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and took the deceased to his by promising that he would take care of her well. But on the day of incident, P.W.3, the owner of the house where the accused and deceased were living, informed P.W.1 that the deceased was murdered. P.W.4, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased, also supported the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He spoke about the harassment made by the accused to the deceased and on one occasion the deceased attempting suicide by consuming pesticide. The version of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 that the deceased was harassed by the accused, was also spoken to by P.W.3 and 5, who are house owner and neighbour of the accused and the deceased. P.W.3, house owner of the accused

¶30

specifically stated that the accused is his tenant since last nine months, and suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, used to harass her by abusing, and unable to bear the harassment, she left to her parents house, and the accused brought her back. Again 15 days prior to the incident, when the deceased again started harassing the deceased, she left to her parents house, and one week thereafter, the accused brought her back. The fact that the accused was tenant of P.W.3 was spoken to by P.W.5, who is a retired Sub Inspector, and neighbour of the accused. He corroborated the version of P.W.3 that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the accused harassed her physically and mentally and the deceased leaving to her parents house on more than one occasion and the accused bringing her back to his house. Thus from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, the prosecution could prove beyond doubt that the circumstance that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, used to harass her.

¶31

The prosecution to prove the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and it is the accused, who came out of the house after stabbing the deceased, examined P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.W. 3 in his evidence stated that on the day of incident, he closed the shop at about 8.30 p.m., and came to his house, and while he was standing in front of his house, he saw the accused and the deceased coming, and when he questioned, they replied that they went to a park and were returning to the house. Then the deceased came to his house and spoke to his mother and went to her house. Thereafter, he left to second show and returned to the house at 12.30 p.m. After one hour, he heard some hue and cry from the house of the accused and then, himself and his family members woke up and then himself and his father went to the house of the accused and knocked the doors to know as to what happened. Then

¶32

the accused opened the doors and came out with a knife in his hands and out of fear he went to some distance. Then, P.W.5 and Shaik Shafi (L.W.8) and others came to the scene of offence and when they tried to apprehend, the accused threatened them with the knife and ran away. Then, himself and his father went into the house of the deceased and saw the deceased with bleeding stabbing injuries on her abdomen. P.W.5 supported this version of P.W.3. He stated that on the day of incident at about 9.00 p.m., while he was standing out of his house, he saw the accused and the deceased returning to their house. On the same day in the night at 2.00 a.m., he heard some hue and cry from the house of the accused, and when he came out of the house, he saw P.W.8, Mohammed Asadulla Khan (L.W.5) and others standing in front of the house of the accused. Then he saw the accused coming out of the house with a knife in his hand, and when they tried to apprehend, the accused fled away. Then they entered into the house and saw the deceased with bleeding stab injuries on her abdomen.

¶33

Though P.W.3 in his evidence stated that meanwhile P.W.5 and Shaik Shafi (L.W.8) came there, and in his statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, did not state about P.W.5 coming there and chasing the accused to apprehend him, the fact remains, P.W.5, who is a resident of the locality, where the scene of offence is situated, spoke about the harassment of the deceased by the accused suspecting her fidelity. Though P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that on 25.05.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., he saw the accused and the deceased going to their house, but in his statement given to the police, he merely stated that about 9.30 p.m., he saw the accused returning from gounda work and did not state about the deceased accompanying him, the fact remains, it is only a minor contradiction.

¶34

The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 being corroborative with each

¶35

other, such minor contradictions, cannot go to the root of the matter, to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the deceased and the accused was the person who came out of the house after stabbing the deceased. Thus we hold that the prosecution could prove the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and it was the accused who came out of the house after stabbing the deceased.

¶36

The contention of the appellant-accused that as P.W.5 in his evidence deposed that he did not observe any pool of blood on the bed, and since P.W.9-Investigating Officer also did not seize the blood stained bed from the scene of offence, it cannot be said that the deceased died due to stab injuries. This contention of the appellantaccused cannot be accepted. Merely because P.W.5 in his evidence stated that he did not observe any pool of blood and as P.W.9Investigating Officer, did not seize the blood stained blood, the same by itself, does not demolish the prosecution case that the deceased did not die due to stab injuries.

¶37

The fact that the deceased died due to stab injuries on her abdomen, as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 5 stands established by the evidence of P.W.8-Doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P5-post mortem certificate. He noted the following injuries on the abdomen of the dead body of the deceased:

¶38

1. An incised wound of 1 x ½ cm in length present on the upper part of front of abdomen in the midline, 7 cm below the xyphusterunum, elliptical in shape, vertical in direction, cut section congested.

¶39

2. An incised wound of 1 x ½ cm in length present just right to injury No.1 with a gap of 1 cm between the two injuries, elliptical in shape, vertical in direction, cut section congested.

¶40

3. An incised wound of ½ x ½ cm in length present, 2 cm above the umbilicus on midline, vertical in direction, elliptical in shape, vertical in direction, cut section congeted.

¶41

4. Multiple pinpoint haemorrhage spots of about seven in number on the right side of abdomen between injury Nos.1 and 3 skin deep, cut section

¶42

congested.

¶43

He opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple ante mortem injures to stomach and intestines, which can be caused by M.O.1-knife. The fact that M.O.1-knife is the weapon that was used by the accused in the commission of the offence, was identified by P.W.3 as the one which he found in the hands of the accused.

¶44

The factum of arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.1-knife from the accused, stood established by the prosecution by examining P.W.9-Investigating Officer and P.W.7-mediator to the arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.1-knife by P.W.9 at the instance of the accused. P.W.9 stated on credible information, he proceeded to Meenakshi Lodge at Nandyal and arrested the accused and seized M.O.1-knife in the presence of P.W.7 and I. Venkata Ramana (L.W.13). This version of P.W.9 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.7, who stated that P.W.9 apprehended the accused at Meenakshi Lodge, and on enquiry, the accused disclosed his name to be Mohammed Haneef and admitted that he committed the murder of the deceased and hid M.O.1-knife used by him in the commission of the crime in the bushes near Rani Maharani Theatres near the bridge at Kundu river.

¶45

Thus we hold that the prosecution could establish beyond all reasonable doubt all the circumstances that lead to the only conclusion that the accused is the person who caused the death of the deceased by stabbing her on her abdomen.

¶46

In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶47

__________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶48

P. DURGA PRASAD, J.

¶49

Dated: 09.10.2012 KSR

Shaik Mohd. Haneef, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mohd. Haneef, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soyyari Sukharayya, Vs The State of A.P.

Yerraguntla Nandini, Vs Y.Tirupalu Yadav

The Vi Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ftc), Vs Bandi Venkateswarlu

Pratapa V.K.S. Somajayulu, Vs The Superintendent of Police

M.Ramu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sivangula Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P.