Md.Shakeel Vs. State
Police Tr. P. S. Hanmakonda & ANR. [2008] INSC 1882 (6 November 2008)
Judgment
STATE POLICE THROUGH
P.S. HANMAKONDA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.
197 of 2008) NOVEMBER 6, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,
JJ.] The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant in terms
of section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short 'Code'). The appellant who was accused No. 1 was convicted for
offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short
'Act'). The allegation against the appellant was that he and two others were
responsible for the suicide of Farzana (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') who was the wife of the appellant. The occurrence purportedly took
place on 21.10.1998. 13 witnesses were examined before the learned Principle
Sessions Judge, Warangal. It needs to be noted that after the report was lodged,
investigation was done and charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons
pleaded innocence, they are put on trial. The trial court found that the
appellant and two other accused were guilty of the charges levelled against
them. They were convicted and sentenced. The appellant was convicted for
offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and further he was also
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under
Section 4 of the Act. Other two co-accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year each and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section
498-A IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of
one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for three months each for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e. learned Vth
Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The First Appellate Authority held that
the conviction and sentence as imposed so far as the appellant is concerned do
not warrant interference.
However, the
co-accused persons were acquitted. The order of the First Appellate Authority
was challenged before the High Court by filing a revision petition as noted
above. The same has been dismissed by the impugned order.
2.
In
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no
reason has been indicated by the High Court while dismissing the revision
petition. Learned counsel for the respondent- State supported the judgment of
the High court.
3.
It
is to be noted that the High Court has not indicated any basis or reason as to
why the revision petition filed by the appellant was without any substance.
Strong reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant on a dying
declaration purported to have been recorded on 21.10.1998 at about 5.50 P.M.
which does not, according to him, implicate the appellant. We find that the
High court has referred to the factual scenario for a major part of the
judgment.
It, however, came to
an abrupt conclusion that the revision was without any merit. It also did not
analyse various stands of the appellant. The way the High Court has disposed of
the petition is not the correct way to dispose of the revision petition. It is
not that no arguable point was involved. As a matter of fact, the relevance of
the dying declaration and its effect on the prosecution case has not been
considered by the High Court at all.
4.
Above
being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit
the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We make it
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
5.
During
the pendency of the appeal before this court, no bail was granted to the
appellant. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant has undergone more than two years of sentence. It is open to the
appellant to move the High Court for bail. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to
bail or not.
Needless to say all
relevant aspects shall be considered if an application for bail is filed.
6.
Since
the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to take up the
revision petition at an early date and make an effort to dispose of the same as
early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of
our order.
7.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Back
Pages: 1 2
