Dismissed

Mohd Yakub Pasha v. the State of A.P. Re., by Its Pp

Telangana HC14 Sept 2023CRLRC/147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for dowry harassment but reduced his sentence to the period already served in view of his mental agony.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period of detention already undergone; criminal revision petition dismissed in all other aspects.

Mohd Yakub Pasha Vs the State of A.P. Re., by Its Pp — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^'147 OF 2012

¶7

Criminal Revision Case Under Sections 397^{& 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe} Judgment made in Crl.A.No 171of 2010 dated^{27.O1 .2012 on the fib of theCourtof} the Vll Additional Sessions Judge,^{Warangalagainst the Judgmentmade in} C.C.No.831 of 2008 dated 25.06^{2010 on the file Court of the I AdditionalJudicial} Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd Yakub Pasha, S/o Late Zaheeruddin, R/o. H.No 9-2-70, Charbowli, Warangal. ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT A.1

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Represented by Sub-lnspector of Police, Police} Station lnthezargunj, Warangal,^{ThroughP P HighCourtflfr!,"orr.o,"o*,}

¶12

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2012^{(CRLRCMP. NO:236OF 201 2l}

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition, the HighCourt maybe pleasedto} suspend the conviction^{and sentence imposedin C C. No.831of 2008 in the} Court of I Additional Judicial^{First Class Magistrate,Warangal and as confirmed} in Crl.A.No.171 of^{2O1O in} the^{Courtof the Vll Addl. SessionsJudge' Warangal'} dated 27.01 .2012 and^{releasethe petitioneron bail' pending disposalof the} Crl.R C.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIM. N. NARASIMHA REDDY (NOT PRESENT)}

¶15

Counsel for Respondents:^{THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶16

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUCIOPAL

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.l47 OF 2OL2

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Criminal Revision Case is frled challenging the Judgment dated 27.OI.2O12 in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2O1O on the file of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal (for short, "the appellate court") against the Judgment dated 25.06.2O1O in C.C.No.831 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal (for short, "the trial court").

¶21

None appeared for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State

¶22

The facts, in brief, as unfolded from the case of the prosecution, are that the marriage between the petitionerAl and PWl was solemnized on 27.1O.2OO2. At the time of marriage, as per the demand made by the petitioner, a cash of Rs.65,OOO I -, four tulas of gold ornaments, one Boxer Motorcycle and other household articles were given and they lived happily for about one year and out of their wedlock one f€ma.le child was born. Subsequently, the

¶23

¶24

petitioner started harassing PW 1 for additional dowry of Rs.1,O0,OOO/- (Rupees One lakh only). PWl lodged a complaint with police, whereupon a case in Cr.No.4l of 2008 under Section 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and after completion of investigation the police laid charge sheet for the said offences against the petitioner.

¶25

4 . During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.Pl and P2 were marked.

¶26

The learned trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charged offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay hne of Rs.3OO/- for the offence under Section 498-A of IpC, and further convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay fine of Rs.2O0/ - for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Proh ibition Act .

¶27

¶28

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No. 171^of 2010 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after re-appreciating the entire evidence, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed^the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below failed to see that in Ex. D I Orderⁱⁿ O.P.No.19 of 2006 dated 13.11.2OO7 the Court^{held that} the alleged demand of dowry by the petitioner and^his mother appears to be a make-believe affair^{and ordered for} restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, both the^husband and wife never lived together and there is no^occasionto make additional demand of dowry or harassment.

¶30

As seen from the record and as^per the^{evidence of} P.W. 1, the marriage between the^{petitionerand P.W.1was} solemnized oo 27.1O.2OO2 and the petitioner^{was presented} a cash of Rs.65,OOO/ , 4 tulas of^{gold, one Pulsar} motorcycle aphrt from household articles'^Afterthe marriage, the petitioner and P.W.1 lead^{happy marital life}

¶31

¶32

for a period of one (1) year and they were blessed with a female child and thereafter, p.W. I has been harassed by the petitioner and his mother for want of additional dowry of Rs.1,OO,O0O/- (Rupees one lakh only). p.W. 1 placed the matter before the elders, before whom the petitioner promised about her well-being but did not do so. Later, on one day she was severely beaten by the petitioner and he tried to kill her by pouring Kerosene on her. Due to vexation, she filed a petition before Family Court, Warangal in the month of Januar5r, 2OOg. She went to the house of the petitioner, she was not allowed to enter the house and the petitioner picked up quarrel with her arrd necked her out of their house. Thereupon pW. 1 filed the complaint.

¶33

The evidence of^p.W.2 the father of p.W. 1 a.lso went in the same lines as that of p.W. 1. p.W.3 one of the panchayat elders supported the case of the prosecution and spoke about the harassment of the petitioner towards p.W.l for u,arl t of additional dowry. p.W.4 re_examined the witnesses and handed over the CD file to p.W.5 Investigating Officer for further investigation.

¶34

¶35

From,the evidence of the prosecution^q,itnesses it is established that the petitioner harassed P.W. I physically and mentally for u,ant of additional dowry and necked her out of her matrimonial home. Hence, it is nothing but harassment on the part of the petitioner.

¶36

1 l. From the totality of the facts and circumstanccs I am of the opinion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498 A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are r1o grounds much less va-lid grounds to interfere rvith the nell considered judgments of the courts belou, and accordingly this criminal revision case is liable to be dismisscd.

¶37

However, as the petitioner accused suflcred mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation belore the trial court as well as the appellate court, in vicw o[ which, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is hereby reduced to the period of detention already undcrgone by him under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶38

Except the above modihcation, in respect of the period of sentence, this criminal revision case, in all othcr aspecls,

¶39

¶40

is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this

¶41

criminal rcvision case shall stand closed.

,=',i'"JL'JIYXii

//TRUE COPY/' U

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1 . The Vll Addrtional^{Sesstons Judge. Warangal'} . .,

¶46

i iil; iAjj i";;t^{luo,ciatFirst ClissMagistiate' warangal.}

¶47

ii " ltrt."-House^{Officer. polrceStatidn lnthezargunj.Warangal.} ; O"; cc cc^{to s,i tvl N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]s,i tvl N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]tvl N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]Advocate [oPUC][oPUC]}

¶48

; O"; cc cc^{to s,i tvl N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]s,i tvl N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]tvl N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]N Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]Narasimha Reddv Advocate [oPUC]Advocate [oPUC][oPUC]}

¶49

6 i;; 66.1o^{rn. puutrcPiosecutor, H'ighCourt for the Stateof Telangana} lourl

¶50

6 Two CD CoPies

MBC

BS prr-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410912023

1 6 STAT6
q -z
oo I q J[1{ 2t2[ ..-),C)
..1
* OE9 fri

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLRC.N0.147 ot 2012

¶58

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION

¶59

qcc{Xs\

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

N^D

Mohd Yakub Pasha v. the State of A.P. Re., by Its Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Yakub Pasha v. the State of A.P. Re., by Its 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

M.Danam, Rc Puram, Medak District Vs T.Srinivas, Medak District and Another, Rep.by P.P, High Court

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others Vs K.Sathyanarayana and Another

Punreddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Bade Sha , Badesab , Venkateshwarlu Vs the State of A.P. Rpe., by Its Pp

Elageleti Ram Babu Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp Thr., Sho., Kodad P.S

Dasari Venkata Rajam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P