Dismissed

Asif Khan v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024CRLA/234/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and cruelty under dowry laws. High Court upheld the lower court's finding that the killing was intentional murder rather than culpable homicide not amounting to murder, dismissing the appeal and ordering concurrent sentences.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed. Sentences to run concurrently. Period of remand set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Asif Khan Vs the State of Telangana — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴¹³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOIJR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 234 OF 2016

¶8

Appeal under Section 374(2) ot Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 20.01.2016 made in SC.No.510 of 2O11 on the fite of the Court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Asif Khan, S/o. Afzal Khan, Age 35 years, Occ: Electrician, R/o.D.No.9-8480/5/5, Sajjad Colony, Chota Bazar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT'ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, through the lnspector of Police, Golconda Police 9tation,^{Hyderabad,Rep., by PublicProsecutor,High Court of Judicate at} Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT'COMPLAINANT

¶15

Counsel forthe Appellant: Sri K. Venkatesh

¶16

Gounsel for the Respondents: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE^{J.ANIL KT'MAR}

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.234^OF 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT t (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

¶21

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the^judgment, dated 2O.O1.2Ctl6,^passed in S.C.No.510 of 2Ol1 on the file of V Additional^Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), at Hyderabad, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section^a98(A) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.SOO/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Further, the appellant was convicted for the offence purLishable under Section 3O2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine otf Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Further, the appellant rvas also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and sentenced to unrlergo ngorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ , in

¶22

KS,J&JAIq' Crl.A.No.234 ofm15

¶23

¶24

defar.rlt^{of paymentof fine, to undergo simple imprisonment} for one month.

¶25

Heard Mr. K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for^the appellant/accused ard Mr. Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶26

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that^the deceased, who is the wife of the^{appellant, was harassed by} the appellant on a daily basis.^{Accordingto PWl (neighbor} of the deceased), PW2 {mother of the^{deceased)and PW3} (brother of the deceased), the terms between the appellant and the deceased were not proper and they^{were fighting} amongst themselves. The allegation^{against the appellant is} tllat the appellant used to harass the^{deceased for} additional dowry and also used^{to beat her. According to} PW2, mother of the deceased, though certain^amountswere paid, the harassment did not stop. On 19.O1.2009'^the appellant went to the house of^{PW2, wherethe deceased} was staying. He promised the^{deceasedthat he will not} harass her and took her along with him. On^{the very next} day, it was informed that the deceased^receivedburn injuries. The distance between the house of^{PW2and the} appellant was at a walking^{distance of 5 minutes.}

¶27

KS J&JAK,'I C[l.A N( 2]1of2016

¶28

¶29

After the deceased^{received burn injuries,she was} taken to the hospital.^{The Duty Doctoraddresseda' letter} (Ex.Pl) to PW4, who is the^{jurisdictional Magistrate, for} recording Dying Declaration.^{PW4 went to the hospitaland} recorded the Dying Declaration^{of the deceasedon} 2O.Ol.2OOg. The deceased^{statedbeforePW't that etround} O5:30 a.m. in the^{morning hours of 2O.OL.2OO9, the} appellant poured^{kerosene on her and lit her on fire From} the beginning of her marriage,^{the appellant used to come} home in a drunken condition^{and used t'lharass and} quarrel with. her. Due to the constant^{halassment, the} deceased went to her^{parent's house one month prior to the} incident and she returned to the^{appellant's irouse onlythe} previous day of the incident. At around^{O5:.10 a.m} ,^while deceased was sleeping in the^{room, the appellant c'ntered} into the room, Poured kerosene^{on her and lit her on fire.}

¶30

The deceased died after two^{days of recordingDying} Declaration. Post Mortem examination^{was conductcd alter} inquest proceedings. The Police^{also conductedscene of} panchanamma on 20.O1.2009 itself^{on the clate of lodging} the complaint.

¶31

¶32

KS,.' & JAK J Crl.A.No-234 of20l6

¶33

Learned Sessions Judge, having examined the witnesses, placed reliance on the Dying Declaration that was given to the learned Magistrate/PW4 and also Ex.P7, which was the statement given by deceased to PW8, who was the Superintendent of Police.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that there was delay in recording the Dying Declaration. The Dying Declaration was recorded the next day and by that time, there was every chance of her mother, brother and other relatives tutoring the deceased to speak against the appellant. Once the tutoring aspect is believed, since PWs.2 and 3, were in the hospital, there calnot be any sanctity to the Dying Declaration recorded by learned Magistrate/PW4. Apart from the statement made by the deceased in the Dying Declaration, there is absolutely no other corroborating evidence to show that it was the appellant who has poured kerosene on deceased and lit her on fire. In the absence of any such independent eye witnesses, the conviction has to be set aside.

¶35

Alternatively, the learned counsel submits that the offence may fall under Section 304 part-ll of IPC. He relied

¶36

KS.]&JAK,J Crl.A No.l14 of20l6

¶37

¶38

upon the^{judgmentofHon'ble SupremeCourt in} Dattatraga^{Vs. The Statc of Maharashtrat}

¶39

g. Learned Public Prosecutor^{would submit that the} question of tutoring does not^{arise, since the deceasedwas} in the hospital^{and there is no reason why the deceased,} who is the wife of the^{appellant,would speal< false about} her husbancl,^{unless there was harassrnentbJ' the} appellant and^{he was the person who has poured kerosene} on her.

¶40

Having^gone through^{the record, PWs.2and 3 stated} about the harassment by^{the appellantfor additional} dowry. It is admitted^{that since one month prior t'o the} incident, the^{cleceasedwas staying in the house of PW2.} Only on the^{previous day of the incident,the appellant} went to the house of^PW2 and^{asked the deceasedto come} back with him.^{The deceasedhad gone to the house of the} appellant ancl on the^{same day, in the night,there was a} quarrel betrveen the deceased and the^{appellarrt. According} to the statement of deceased made^{underE>l'P2 recorded} by learned Magistrate/PW4 and also^{Ex.P7 recordedbv} Superintendent of Police/PW8, it^{wasspecifically}

¶41

t in Crl,A.No.666 ol 2012, dtd O1.O2.2024

¶42

KS,J&JAK,J Crl-A.No.234 of20l6

¶43

¶44

mentioned that she was staying in her parents'house since one month and only on the day before the incident, she came to the house of the appellant. There was a quarrel in the night. In the early morning at around 05:30 a.m., the appellant poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire.

¶45

1 1. Learned Magistrate/PW4 has recorded the Dying Declaration after being certified by duty doctor. Prior to the statement being recorded, the duty doctor endorsed that the patient was conscious, coherent and in the ht state of mind before giving the Dying Declaration. In fact, after the Dying Declaration also, similar endorsement was made by dut5r doctor that throughout the recording of the statement, the patient was conscious and coherent.

¶46

The defence suggested to PW2 was that due to stove accident, the deceased received burn injuries. Suggestions made to PW3 show that deceased had committed suicide.

¶47

The Post Mortem examination was conducted by PW7, who found that there was a dead male baby of 48 cms. Admittedly, the deceased was pregnant carrying a baby when the incident happened. Though the defence taken by the appellant is inconsistent regarding there being an accident or suicide, the circumstances projected by the

¶48

tl-

¶49

KS.J&JAK-J Crl.A.No 214 of20l6

¶50

¶51

prosecution and the evidence^{availableon record can be} looked into to infer^{whether the burns werehomicidal,} accidental or suicidal

¶52

There is no^{reasonwhy the deceased rvould commit} suicide, while being^{pregnant.Both PWs.2 and 3 and also} deceased stated that^{the appellantwas quarrelling with} them for additional^{dowryand also harassing the deceased} on a daily basis. Though the^{statement made by the} deceased is that there was a^{quarrel in the night, that} cannot form basis to say that^{there was ary kind of} provocation by the deceased or that incident^{happened in a} ht of anger pursuant to any^{altercation'The altercation} happened in the night.^However, the^{appellant had poured} kerosene on the deceased in the early morning^{at around} 05:30 a.m. There was considerable time^{difference between} the incident of quarrel between the deceased ald^the appellant and time when the appellant had^poured kerosene on her and lit her on fire.

¶53

The said^judgment relied on by learned counsel for appellant is not applicable to the present. facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a case where there was a sudden fight in be en the husband and wife,

¶54

¶55

KS, J & JAK. J Crl.A }tu.2.J4 of 2016

¶56

the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that there was no intent on the part of the husband to kill his deceased wife, as such, the conviction was recorded under Section 304 PartII of IPC. As already discussed, the facts differ from the case cited by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶57

In the present case, there was frght in the night. However, the deceased was burnt by the appellant in the early morning. When there is such a long time gap between the incident of quarrel and the burning by the appellant, it cannot be said that the incident of burning the deceased was on the spur of the moment or being enraged by ".,y fight amongst them.

¶58

It is apparent from the conduct of the appellant that the appellant burnt the deceased in the early morning at around O5:30 a.m., while the deceased was sleeping, which would only go to show that the act was intentional.

¶59

There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of Iearned Sessions Judge.

¶60

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. However, the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of remand undergone by the appellant/accused during the

¶61

I -t-

¶62

KS,'&JAK,J C'l.A No 234 of20l6

¶63

¶64

investigation. trial and^{after conviction shall be givenset}

¶65

off, under Section 428^{of Cr.P.C.}

¶66

Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶67

//TRUE COPYII

¶68

SJ+ N OFF]CER

¶69

To'1. The V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

¶70

The XVll Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad}

¶71

The Station House Officer, Golconda^{Police Station, Hyderabad.}

¶72

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶73

Ohe CC to Sri^K. Venkatesh,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

Two CD Copies

VtVgh

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2611112024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.234 ot 2016

I ttL l\14
t -''\l
o (
12 FErt Z0ZS
a
I
D +
EO
iii.I

¶82

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶83

.,K

Asif Khan v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Khan v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patharla Ramu and Another Vs the State of Ts., Rep. by P.P.

Govindaram Kanakaiah, Siddipet Town., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Mirza Zakki Baig, Nirmal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Velupula Ramu Vs the State of Telangan

Armulla Devender, Karimnagar Dist. Vs Sho, Jagtial Town P.S.

Kota Prasanna Laxmi, Warangal Dist. and Ano Vs Lethakuka Narender Reddy, Warangal and 2 Othrs