Partly allowed

Shaik Jeelani and 2 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC26 Jun 2023CRLA/1826/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal appeal partly, reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for rape and cruelty to the period already undergone due to the appellant's age and dependents, though maintaining the conviction for cruelty.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years reduced to the period already undergone.

Shaik Jeelani and 2 Others, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

[^32s1 I

i J

:l l i

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶5

IVIONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY oF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶8

CRIMINAL AP PEAL NO: 18 26 0F 2009

¶9

Appeal under Section 37ae) of Cr.p.C , aggrieved by the Judgment dated 17.122009 passed in sc.No. 12g of 2009 on the fire of the rearned V Additionar Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Shaik Jeelani, S/o. Shaik Sattar, aged 28 years,

¶12

, 3[, fr:igi1p t*um @ Razua besum, Wo Abdut sattar, ased 45 years,

¶13

Adbul Sattar, S/o. Abdul Jabbar, aged 50 years,

¶14

All R/o. H. No. 1 1 -3-2661 40 rBt3 i, Mahmoodguda, warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶15

AND

¶16

...APELLANTS/ACCUSED No.{ to 3

¶17

The State.Of Andhra pradesh, rep by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPODENT/COMPLAINANT

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. N.S. PATTABHI RAMA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent: pUBLIC pROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶25

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1826 OF 2OO9

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

This Cr:m inal Appeal is hled by the appellants/A 1 to A3 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the V Additionat Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.I28l2OO9 dated 17.12.2OO9, for^{1.he offences} punishable uncler Section 4(18-A of the lndian^Per-ral Code, and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a^period of^{two years} and to pay a flnc of Rs. l,OOO/^- each.

¶28

Briefly. thc case of Lhc defacto complainant-PW6^{is that} his deceast:d sister was married to the appellant and^at the^time of marriage, do<sup>rry was givern. The death of the deceased^{was on} 29.O2.2OO8. A written complaint-Ex.P5^{was filed in which PW6} stated that. the deceased informed on^phone that^{the 1"t} appellant zrnd in-laws were harassing her for an amount^of Rs.50,0OO/- lor the purl)ose of setting. up^workshopfor repairing two wheelers.^'l-frc said^phone call^{was madeon} 25.O2.2OO8. On 29.O2.2OO8, he received a^{phone call that the} deceased comnritted suicide by hanging.

¶29

--1?'

¶30

The Police conducted investigation and found that Accused Nos.l to 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 304-8 and 498-4 ofthe Indian Penal Code.

¶31

Having framed charges for the said offence, the learned Sessions Judge examined PWs.1 to 1 I and marked Exs.Pl to P16. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that none of the ingredients of Section 3O4-B are made out. There is no harassrnent proximate to the death of the deceased. However, the learned Sessions Judge found that the allegation regarding dcmand of Rs.50,0O0 /- and beating the deceased on one occasion was consistent. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 498-4 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted for the offence under Section 304-8 and Accused Nos.4 and 5 were acquitted for both the charges under Section 498-A and 3O4 B of the IPC.

¶32

State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of the accused 1 to 3.

¶33

¶34

The solrtan, irtr.rclr:l t of beating the dc.ccasecl in thc presence of PW6 is rht. brrsrs for convicting thest: appellants. The evidence for demanrl ol I?s.50,000/- is consistent. As seen from the conrpltrint-l*. P5 lrrrcl also evidence of pW6 and pWg, I do not find anl,infirntitv u,irl.r the said hndings. Ilorvever, it is a solitary incrdent and as seen lrom the complaint-Ex.p5, there is no mention aboul A I be atrng the deceased in front of pW6 except statinll that a clentartd of Rs.50,O00/- was made.

¶35

In the said circr.r m stan (.es, since the offence is of the year 2O08 and it is stated thar lhe lst appellant had dependents (parents) to Look aftt'r, thrs Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence ol imprisonment to the period already undergone.

¶36

Accordingly, the Crimrnal Appeal is partly allowed.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal

¶38

appeal, shall s'a nd closed.

¶39

To,

¶40

Sd/. B. S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (i SECTION OFFICER

¶41

¶42

1 The V Additionat Mr Hy;";;d;; iiliiil H:f;13"'^{SessionsJudge,} Mahira courr,

¶43

The Station House (

¶44

'I-,?,s"?l:;16;,iiffi .:lff ll;l.estaton'secunderabad

¶45

4 oneccto SRr. r" "^r.^.: :". - :"uourtfortheStateof reransana 5. Two cD copies PATTABHI IIA,\4A RAo' Advocate [opuc]

pr \bll-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 26106t2023

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1826 of 2009

( 1 e
o C)
v
Oj 1l
=&
\s ll-l
(.)
<br>11
J s orYl l '/'

¶52

PARTLY ALLOWING THE

¶53

CRIMINAL APPEAL

¶54

\5 &s ).

Shaik Jeelani and 2 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jeelani and 2 Others, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), Tallapalliguda[v],Andanr. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

The State of a.P, Vs Manthri Sailoo

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad

Smt.C.Tripurambha Vs M.Umamaheswarin

K.Savitri, Vs K.Narasappa

Narayanalal Vyas, Vs The State of Telangana