Allowed

Mohd. Mahaboob, (A-3) v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC20 Nov 2012CRLA/1567/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC regarding dowry-related harassment leading to suicide, the High Court held that evidence failed to prove instigation for suicide. Conviction was quashed and appellants were acquitted due to lack of specific allegations and nexus in dying declaration.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; fine returned if paid.

Mohd. Mahaboob, (A-3) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its… — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1567 OF 2005

¶2

DATED 20^th NOVEMBER, 2012.

¶3

BETWEEN :

¶4

Mohd. Mahaboob & another

¶5

..Appellants - Accused Nos.3 and 4. and

¶6

State of A.P.

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1567 OF 2005

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the appellants-accused Nos.3 and 4 challenging the judgment, dated 17.10.2005 rendered in Sessions Case No.216 of 2005 whereby the V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, while acquitting A.1 to A.4 for an offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) convicted the appellants herein for an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Allegation against the accused are of harassing the deceased Ghousia for additional dowry, due to which, the deceased committed suicide by 02.12.2004 at about 0900 hours by pouring kerosene on herself and set fire and on 03.12.2004 she succumbed to burn injuries. Hence, the case.

¶11

After investigating into the complaint lodged by the complainant,

¶12

police registered a case and after due investigation they filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 for the offence punishable under Sections 304B of Indian Penal Code and after taking cognizance of the same, the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in P.R.C.No.7 of 2005 committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the same was made over to the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance with law.

¶13

When a charge under Section 304B IPC was framed, accused denied the offence. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and also MOs 1 and 2 in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, though no oral evidence was adduced, Ex.D.1 was marked. After appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge by impugned judgment convicted only the appellants herein while acquitting A.1 and A.2 as stated above. Aggrieved over the same, present appeal has been filed.

¶14

This Court perused the entire evidence and also heard the arguments.

¶15

It is pertinent to mention here that even though charge under Sections 304B and 498A IPC were framed against the appellants, the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

¶16

Originally, along with the present appellants two more persons were charge sheeted for the occurrence. The main allegations levelled against the accused, as per the prosecution, are that in connection with demand of dowry the deceased herein was subjected to harassment by these appellants along with two other accused persons i.e. husband and brother-in-law of the deceased. In this case, two dying declarations were recorded wherein the deceased has stated the names of the appellants herein and she further stated that they harassed her, but whereas the reading of the entire evidence discloses that the occurrence of beating took place six months prior to

¶17

deceased committing suicide. Thus, there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the said harassment.

¶18

The learned trial Judge erroneously convicted the appellants for an offence under Section 306 IPC since because the reading of the entire evidence does not disclose any instigation or aid by the appellants herein in deceased committing suicide. Even admitting the fact that there was some harassment in connection with demand of dowry, the witnesses have not deposed before the Court regarding any specific allegations by mentioning the date and time of occurrence. Without there being any specific overt acts attributed to the appellants herein, mere vague allegations that the appellants also harassed the deceased cannot be the ground to convict the appellants.

¶19

Further on a perusal of the records it is evident that most of the allegations are against the husband of the deceased, who was acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that his name was not mentioned in the dying declaration. At the same time, the trial Court convicted the persons whose names are mentioned in the dying declarations. But, it is to be noted that in one of the dying declarations, when the deceased was asked to tell the name of her father-in-law, she informed that she do not know the full name of her father-in-law from which piece of material it is evident that at that particular time the deceased was not in a position to give a declaration about the injuries suffered by her.

¶20

Apart from the dying declarations, in their evidence PWs 2 and 3, who are the father and mother of the deceased, also have not stated any specific allegations against the appellants herein and they merely deposed that along with the husband of the deceased, appellants also harassed the deceased. In view of the said evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove either the offence under Section 306 or 498A IPC against the appellants herein. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants is liable to be set aside.

¶21

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned trial Judge in Sessions Case No.216 of 2005 is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offence levelled against them. Fine amount paid by the appellants, if any, shall be returned to them.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Date : 20.11.2012 sur

Mohd. Mahaboob, (A-3) v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mahaboob, (A-3) v. State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Ltd., rep. by Sr. Executive Vs M/s. P.J. Agro Tech Ltd.

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Thaddi Venkataramana, Kapu by Caste

G.Babu, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Iqbalunnisa Begum , Farzana Begum, Vs Syed Abdul Quddus

Potarla Veeranna, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

M. Ashok Vs Smt. Marathi Lalitha Rani