Partly allowed

Syed Nazeeb Pasha v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC22 Jan 2025CRLA/1020/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction appeal against conviction and 7-year sentence for dowry death. The High Court found no evidence of a dowry demand or harassment proximate to death, so Section 304-B was not attracted; it instead convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC with six months rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304-B IPC set aside; convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment.

Syed Nazeeb Pasha Vs the State of A.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

BAIL SLIP: The Appellant / Accused was directed to be released^{on bail by the} Order of the High Court dated 09-09-2010 made in Crl.A.M.P.No.¹⁵⁹³ of 2010 in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO:^'1020 OF 2010

¶7

Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment^{dated 26-08-} 2010 made in S.C.No.146 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the^{I Additional District &} Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Nazeeb Pasha, S/o. Aaeez, 26^years, Muslim,^{Cloths Business, R/o.} H.No.7-2-139, Addankivari Street, Khammam Town, Present^7-3-206, Kummari Bazar, Khammam

¶10

...Appellant / Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P,,^Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri Legal Aid Counsel

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent

¶16

Sri M Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court delivered the following Judgment^:

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1O2O OF 2O1O

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

1 . This a ppeal is trled by the appellant aggrieve'd by the judgrnent rlated 26.08.2010 in S.C.No.146 of 2OO9, on the h1e of I Aclditional District & Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam l)islrict. The appellant was convicted for t]re offence under Section 304-El of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonrncnt.

¶21

Heard Sri Veluri Ravi Kumar, learned legal aid counsel for the appellzrnt/ Accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddr, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

¶22

The proseculion version is that the accused married the deceased^jn the year 2O03 and at the time of marriage, Rs.20,0007 - cash, 3 tulas of gold and 3 pairs, of silvcr anklets were given. Parents of the deceased gave Rs.3O,O00/- to the accused. Thc dcceased gave birth to tu-o children, one daughter and one son. Afler the death of the son, accused started demanding money. Tw,o or three time,s, parents of the deceased gave Rs.3O,000/ to Rs.60,OO0/- or-r the dcmand of the accused. The appellant and deceased wir,: married earlier. After leaving their spouses, appellant and dr:ceased married.

¶23

¶24

Alter receiving money, the accused and deceased came over to Kothagudem, where the parents of the deceased lived and opened a cloth shop. After exhausting all the money, thc accused again shifted to Khammam. On demand by the accused, parents of the deceased gave motor cycle to the accused. But the accused pledged the motor cycle and spent money on drinking. Inspite of caution by elders, the^appellant continued harassing the deceased. While so, on the date^of death, aL 3 a.m., the appellant called the parents of^the deceased and informed about the death of the^deceased. Parents of the deceased along with other relatives went^to Khammam and saw the dead body and found injuries on^the right side of eye, on her back, on the temporal^{region ald also} on both thighs of lhe deceased. Suspecting^{that the appellant} u'as responsible for the death of their daughter,^father of^the deceased lodged a complaint.

¶25

Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on^the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 9, mother-in-law^{and brother-} in-1arn of the appellant, who spoke about^{harassmentby the} appellanl for additional dowry. The^{evidence of P.W.l was} corroborated by the complaint that^{was hled under Ex.P.1.}

¶26

¶27

;-.

¶28

Learrred Sessions Judge further lound that death was unnatural on the basis of evidencc of^post mcrtem Doctor and also P.W.2',vho treated the deceased on 23.O6.20O8 arrd also on 24.06.2OO8. The deceased died ofl 24.C6.2O08 and the complaint in'as filed on 25.06.20O8 at 1 p.m. The Investigating Ofhcer \'ent- to the scene of offence and co nducted scene of offence panr:hnama, examined witnesses and sent the body to post mortem examination. Alter con cluding inquest proceedings, post mortem Doctor/P.W.8 found two contusions 2 x 2 on the forehead and occipital region. Ac:cording to P.W.8, cause of death was 'cranio cerebral injury'.

¶29

Learned legal aid counsel rnould submit that act:ording to final report hled by the lnvestigating Officer, lhe injury caused to the decr:ased was on account of 4 year olcl child rvho while playing r,r,ith a u,ooden cricket bat accidentalll hit the deceased on the forehead, for u.hich reason, thcre vyas a contusion. However, the said revelation during investigati,rn was not stated by the Investigating Ofhccr nor elicited by tLLe counsel in the trial Court. Legal aid counsel further argued that there is no evidence placed on record to suggest that the appellant had in any manncr harassed the deceased for adctitional dowry in proximitl. 1.o her death. When the death was accidental, the

¶30

¶31

question of attracting an offence under Section 3O4 B of IpC does not arise.

¶32

7 . Having gone through the record, according to p.W. 1, molher and P.W.9, brother of the deceased, both the appeliant and the deceased were married and at the time of marriage, dowry was given. After marriage, they lived amicably for some time, however, appellant started beating the deceased demanding amount. Rs.6O,OO0/- was given to the appellant for opening a shop and money was also given for purchasing a motor cycle.

¶33

Accepting the allegations of P.W. 1 and p.W.9 that amount was given pursuant to the demand, however, both the witnesses did not speak anything about any kind of demand that was made and deccased being harassed for meeting such demand prior to her death. The amount of Rs.6O,0O0/- given for opening a shop and Rs.SO,OOO l- .for purchasing a motor cycle was stated, however as to when the payments were made was not stated.

¶34

To attract an offence under Section 304-8 of IpC, the prosecution is bound to prove

¶35

That the death occurred within 7 years of marriage

¶36

)

¶37

lI I

¶38

There u,as any unlawful demand for dowry and to fulfill such demand, deceased \ ras subjected to harassment

¶39

¶40

There is no whisper of any kind of demitnd for redditional dowry thar was made either by p.W. 1 or p.,tr.9 ancl no such statement is made in the complaint/ Ex. p. I either.

¶41

P.W.2] is RMP Doctor to whom the deceased was taken on 26.03.2008. According to her evidence, the deccased was suffering with fever. She also noticecl injury o:-r the lcft eye and forehead of the deceased. However it is not the case of p.W.2, that she questioned the deceased about hon, she recr:ived the said injuries Though nothing was elicited during exa mination of witnesses regarding the injuries, ho,,vever, it is duty of the prosecution to explain who causcd the said injuries. Neither P.W. I nor P.W.2 spoke about appellant causing injur_v but only said that thev were informed by Lhe appellant that the cleceased received injr.rries and died.

¶42

In thr: said circumstances, u,hen the ingrcdrents of Section 304-8 of IPC are not made out, the convrc[ior cannot be sustainecl under Section 304 B of IpC.

¶43

13 However, the narration of p.Ws. I and 9 and also as seen from the cornplaint, there was demand for mone\ to be

¶44

¶45

arranged, for which reason, money was arranged on two occasions, for opening a shop and for purchasing a motor cycle. It is not the case that amount was voluntarily given, but was given on account of demand made by the appellant and his insistence to pay the said amount. The said act of appellant amounts to cruelty. Accordingly, the appellant is convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to 6 months of rigorous imprisonment.

¶46

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Since it is informed that the appellant is on bail, the trial Court shall cause appearance of the appellant and send him to jail to serve out remaining part of the sentence imposed by this Court.

¶47

5A{4.V.S.S.C.S.M.^SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The I Additional District^{& Sessions Judge, Khammam, Khammam District} (with records, if anY)

¶50

The I Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof First Class, Khammam}

¶51

The Member^{secretary, TelanganastateLegalservices Authority,High court} for the State of Telangana^{at Hyderabad} ( By Special Messenger )

¶52

The Station House^{Officer, KhammamI Town PS,KhammamDistrict}

¶53

5.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

One CC to Sri^{Ravi KumarVeluri'Legal Aid Counsel [OPUC]}

¶55

Two CD CoPies

vtugh \cY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210112025

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1020 of 2010

1r,B \i lAf €'
( o
(.(
:)
c)c) 1 2 FtB 2U25 oz
.L
t *
D€.-.rpatcH

¶62

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA

¶63

\o .*1d k,

Syed Nazeeb Pasha v. the State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Nazeeb Pasha 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

Baddam Venkatram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pintu Kumar Sah Vs the State through Circle Inspector of Police, Adilabad

Jasmeer Singh Saluja Vs The State of Telangana

Parvatham Pentaiah, Nalgonda Dt. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P

Baddrapuram Mahesh, Kukatpally Vs the State of a.P., Rep. Pp through Sho, Ps., Kukatpally

Thripati Manoj , Manu Vs the State of A.P.