Karipi Rasheed Ahmed
Vs. State of A.P  INSC 424 (26 February 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2009
[Arising 0ut of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8116 OF 2007] Karipi Rasheed ..... Appellant
Versus State of Andhra Pradesh .....
Rasheed A-1 and Naazar Ahmed A-2 have filed this leave to appeal against the
judgment and order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 512 of 2004. By the
2 impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge confirmed the conviction of A-1
and A-2 under Sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
"IPC") passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal
dated 22.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2002, sentencing them to suffer
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under
Section 384 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a
fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 506 IPC.
learned Chamber Judge vide order dated 23.11.2006 granted exemption from
surrendering to Karipi Rasheed - A-1, whereas no such exemption has been
granted to Nazaar Ahmed - A-2. Again, the learned Chamber Judge vide order
dated 04.12.2007 granted two weeks time finally to A-2 directing him to file
proof of surrender, failing which his special leave petition was ordered to
stand dismissed without reference to the Court. A-2 has again failed to comply
with the said order of the learned Chamber Judge, therefore, SLP in respect of
A-2 shall stand dismissed in terms of the order dated 04.12.2007.
grant leave to appeal to A-1 only.
stated, the facts of the case are that Sharma Hariharan - complainant filed
complaint against five accused namely, Karipi Rasheed Ahmed - A-1, Naazar Ahmed
- A-2, Sukhdev Singh Sodhi - A-3, Sri Badulla - A-4 and K.H. Ahmed Khaza - A-5
under Sections 323, 342, 347, 352, 384, 390, 442, 464 and 506 of IPC. The
learned Ist Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, has separated
the trial of A-3 to A-5 as they were not found available for trial, therefore,
declared absconders. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 were charged and convicted for the
is the owner and proprietor of Shama Beedi Factory engaged in manufacturing
Beedi and marketing the goods through A-3 - Proprietor of Sodhi Transport
Company to different places. The complainant at the relevant time was Branch
Manager of Warangal Branch of Sodhi Transport Company. He was in-charge of
booking goods of the customers by issuing Lorry Receipts (LRs) on receipt of
money towards transportation charges or asking the customers to make payment at
the time of taking delivery of the goods at the respective destinations. It was
the case of the complainant that in September 1992, A-1 approached and requested
him to issue advance lorry transport receipts for Rs.25.00 lakhs as cost of
goods for discounting the bills from the bank without presenting the goods for
physical verification, but the complainant did not agree to such proposal. A-1
allegedly threatened the complainant to face dire consequences for not obliging
him. A-1 approached the Central Crime Station, Warangal with a false complaint
against the complainant. A-4, who was the CI of Police, Central Police Station,
Warangal, in collusion with A-1 to A-3, took the complainant into custody and
illegally confined him in the Police Station from 17.09.1992 to 12.10.1992.
During the said period, the complainant was mentally and physically harassed
for no rhyme or reason. It was alleged that A-4 at the instance of A-1 and A-2
trespassed into the house of the complainant and snatched gold rings, two
bangles, gold chain costing about Rs. 25,000/- from the custody of his wife, on
the pretext that the complainant has to reimburse the loss of the goods
misplaced by him during transportation thereof. A-1 and A-2 at the instance of
A-4 called the parents of the wife of the complainant and got forcibly, under
threat and coercion one Special Power of Attorney (SPOA) and another Power of
Attorney (POA) executed from the complainant in the name of his father-in-law
for the purpose of executing a sale deed or mortgage deed of the property
belonging to him situated at old Ooty and Palani in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Thereafter, A-1 took over the possession of the property situated at Door No.
69/E1 and 69/E2 at old Ooty by means of agreement dated 09.10.1992 and house
plot at Palani and then got the property transferred in his name through Shri
Unni Nair, father-in-law of the complainant on the basis of the said POAs. The
value of the properties was more than Rs. 25.00 Lakhs. The complainant was kept
in confinement by all the accused till the completion of transactions. It was
further alleged that the complainant or his wife during the period from
17.09.1992 to 12.10.1992 had never approached A-5 the Stamp Vendor for
purchasing of stamps being used for executing SPOA and POA allegedly executed
in favour of father-in-law of the complainant. The complainant was finally
released from the police custody after the transactions were completed as per
the desire of A1 and A- 2. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before
the Superintendent of Police, Warangal and also got issued a legal notice to
the accused persons. On this premise, the complaint came to be filed against
all the five accused persons alleging the commission of the above-said
During the trial of the case, the presence of A-3 to A-5 could not be procured
by the trial Magistrate as they had absconded. The complainant has examined as
many as four witnesses in support of his case. On the basis of the evidence on
record, the learned trial Magistrate found A-1 and A-2 guilty of the charges
under Sections 344, 347, 384, 448 and 506 IPC and accordingly convicted them.
In addition to the substantive sentences and fine imposed upon A-1 and A-2, the
trial Magistrate also directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as
compensation to the complainant.
On appeal, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal by judgment dated
22.03.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2002 modified the conviction and
sentences of A-1 and A-2 as under: S.No Accused Offences Sentence imposed by
Modified by under which trial court the appellate convicted court
1. A-1 & A-2 S.
344 IPC SI for three years and SI for one fine of Rs. 1000-00 year,while each
ID SI for six sustaining the months. fine.
2. A-1 & A-2 S.
384 IPC SI for three years and SI for one fine of Rs. 1000-00 year, while each
ID SI for six sustaining the months. fine.
3. A-1 & A-2 S.
448 IPC SI for one year and The fine of Rs. 500-00 petitioners are each ID SI
for three acquitted months. under this charge.
4. A-1 & A-2 S.
506 IPC SI for one year and SI for six fine of Rs. 500-00 months while each ID
SI for three sustaining the months. fine.
aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 filed Criminal Revision Case No. 512 of 2004
before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment
and order dated 13.04.2006 acquitted A-1 and A-2 under Section 344 IPC and
confirmed their conviction and sentence under Sections 348 and 506 IPC.
A-1 is in appeal before this Court by special leave, whereas the special leave
petition of A-2 has been dismissed for non-compliance of the order of surrender
passed by the learned Chamber Judge of this Court.
the pendency of the appeal, the complainant entered into a compromise agreement
with A-1 and A-2. The compromise agreement and affidavits in support thereof
are placed on record of this appeal. In the said compromise agreement, the
complainant stated he may be permitted to compound the offences with A-1 and
A-2 in the interest of justice. The terms and conditions of the compromise
agreement read as under:
respectably pray this Hon'ble Court to consider this petition as a SPECIAL
2. I humbly submit
that, I am having two daughters and my wife all the 3 are the dependants. Now
it has been passed nearly 16 years after of the occurrence took place.
Maximum period of my
life was completed for attending of my case at Warangal, Ooty, Palani and
3. I further
respectfully submit that at the time of filing the case, my daughters were
Now they become
major, I am in the position to look after their future like Education, Marriage
etc., I had filed the criminal case as well as civil case against the
Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 to get back my properties so that it may be
utilized for my daughters future life.
4. I respectfully
submit that being the best enquiry and steps taken by all the Courts my
properties were recovered. But only I have received the fruits but I cannot eat
them because appeal is pending in both Civil as well as Criminal in Lower Court
Level. If the failure party will proceed further appeal till before this
Hon'ble Court it will take another 6 years to complete. Due to the appeal case
pending, I could not get any remedy in time and I am not in a position to
continue the studies or marriage of my daughters and their future will be in
5. Further I
respectfully submit that, the Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 are also suffered
much by way of losing business, mental agony and the Petitioner No. 1 is also
aged about 83 years and suffers with Hypertension, Sugar, B.P. Heart Attack
etc., and further he will not live without taking insulin as per the advice of
the doctor and that he is taking treatment for the last so many years in
hospital and now also the doctor advised to take bed rest by taking continuous
treatment, he got major Heart Operation at Hyderabad and Bombay.
6. Considering all
these facts, both the Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 and myself have agreed to
enter compromise to compound the offences as per the terms of the affidavit
filed before this Hon'ble Court.
7. I respectfully
submit that, I have no grievance with Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2, since all of
the disputes were amicably settled by Petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 with
may at the outset note that the offences under Sections 384 and 506 Part-II IPC
are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Therefore, the prayer
of compounding the offences made by the complainant and A-1 in their joint
application supported by their affidavits cannot be legally accepted by us.
have heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Senior Advocate for A-1 and Mr. R.
Sundaravardhan, Senior Advocate for respondent - State, and with their
assistance we have gone through the judgment of the learned IV Additional
Sessions Judge as confirmed by the High Court and also the evidence led by the
prosecution. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned Senior Advocate contended that the
courts below have recorded their findings against the appellant on conjectures
and surmises, on the basis of misreading of the evidence led on record by the
complainant. The complainant has failed to prove the ingredients constituting
the offences under Sections 384 and 506 Part-II of IPC and, therefore, the
impugned judgment of the High Court does not stand judicial scrutiny. He next
contended that the complainant has not established on record that A-1 had any
intention to put the complainant under any threat, fear or injury or in any
manner dishonestly induced him to deliver the ownership and possession of the
property or valuable security to A-1. He also contended that the trial court,
appellate court and the High Court all have erred in placing reliance on the
highly interested and discrepant testimony of witnesses who have given one
sided version, whereas the version of A-1 has not been properly appreciated and
considered. It was lastly contended that the complainant has not explained the
delay of about three years in lodging the FIR against the accused persons.
against that, Mr. R. Sundaravardhan, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
State, has canvassed for the correctness of the view taken by trial judge, as
also by the appellate court which was confirmed by the High Court.
order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of the learned counsel for
the parties, on our examination of the judgment given by the trial court, as
also by the appellate court and confirmed by the High Court, we find that all
the courts have properly and rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record
and there is no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts
below to interfere with the well-thought and well-reasoned judgments. The
evidence led by the complainant has satisfactorily and convincingly proved the
charges levelled against A-1 and A-2 beyond reasonable doubt. The three courts
have concurrently held both the accused guilty of the crime and we do not find
any good reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below.
Thus, the conviction
of A-1 under Sections 384 and 506 Part- II IPC cannot be found faulty on any
ground. Now, the only question that survives for our consideration is in regard
to the quantum of sentence.
is now about 83 years old. He is suffering from hypertension, sugar, high blood
pressure, heart attack etc.
He is said to be
regularly taking insulin and the doctor has advised him to take complete bed
rest and continue to take proper medical treatment without fail. The compromise
agreement reveals that A-1 has undergone heart operations at Hyderabad and
Bombay. A-1 has returned the property, the subject-matter of the dispute to the
complainant and has also paid the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in
terms of the order of the High Court. On consideration of the contents of the
above-said compromise agreement and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the opinion that instead of sentencing A-1 to undergo the
substantive sentence of imprisonment as imposed upon him by the High Court, the
interest of justice would be sub-served if the amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/-
imposed upon A-1 under Section 384 IPC is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- and the
amount of fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- for offence under
Section 506 IPC.
Thus, the judgment
and order of the High Court would stand modified to that extent.
the aforesaid reasons, the appeal of A-1 is partly allowed and he is directed
to deposit the enhanced amount of fine of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand
and five hundred only) before the trial court within four weeks from today. In
default of payment of fine amount within the stipulated period, A-1 shall
suffer the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him by the High
Court for committing offences under Sections 384 and 506 IPC.
(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)
(B. Sudershan Reddy)
Pages: 1 2 3