State Of Telangana vs Syed Khadeer Ali

The present appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment acquitting the respondent/Accused No.1 wherein the appellate/Sessions court reversed the finding of conviction against the respondent/Accused No.1. The trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A, 420, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In all, the respondent/A1 and seven others were tried for the said offences arrayed as A-1 to A-8 and charged under the above provisions.

The trial court by judgment dated 15.02.2019 in C.C.No.75 of 2011 convicted the respondent/accused No.1 for the offense under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month and acquitted for the offences under Sections 420, 323 and 506 of IPC. All the other accused (A-2 to A-8) were acquitted of all the charges.

On appeal, the respondent/A1 was acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2019.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the defacto complainant was married to the respondent/A1 on 11.01.2007 at Vellikatta village. The acquitted Accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents-in-law, Accused Nos.4 5 and 7 are sisters of respondent/Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 is the husband of Accused No.5 and Accused No.8 was the mistress of respondent/Accused No.1.

The allegation against the respondent/A1 was that the respondent/A1 and complainant lived happily for a period of three months after marriage. However, all the accused started harassing the complainant for additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and abused her in filthy language. Further, the respondent/A1 beat the complainant in drunken condition. Due to the mental agony for additional dowry, the father of the complainant died. Further, the respondent/A1 was constantly talking to A8 for hours together on phone and when questioned, the respondent/A1 allegedly stated that he performed marriage with the complainant only for the purpose of dowry and he was having illegal intimacy with A8 prior to marriage. Unable to bear the harassment, the complainant questioned the respondent/A1and other accused, for which reason she was sent out from the house of respondent by retaining all her jewellery. PW1 lodged a complaint with police but the police did not take any action on her complaint as such the defacto complainant filed private complaint which was referred to Police Station, Kukunoopally for investigation. Accordingly, the police investigated and filed charge sheet against respondent/A1 and seven others for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 323 and 506 of IPC and also under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

During the course of trial, the trial Court i.e., Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet, by a detailed judgment dated 15.02.2019 acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 8 of all charges, however convicted the respondent/A1 as stated supra.

The respondent/A1 filed the appeal before Sessions Court questioning his conviction. However, the State did not prefer any appeal against the acquittal of the Accused Nos.2 to 8.

Heard Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the respondent/A1.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellate Sessions Court erred in reversing the conviction recorded by the trial court by coming to conclusions which are not supported by evidence. Further, the trial Court had rightly convicted the respondent/A1 by giving adequate and reasonable grounds. In the said circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the appellate Sessions Court has to be reversed and the conviction recorded by the trial Court has to be maintained.

As seen from the judgment of the appellate Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge found that there are discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and their contradictory evidence cannot be made basis to sustain conviction recorded against the respondent/A1. Further, when the very genesis of the complaint which is the illegal relationship between A8 and the respondent/A1 was not proved, the question of convicting the respondent/A1 does not arise in the back ground of the State not preferring any appeal against the acquittal of Accused Nos.2 to 8. Further, when the trial Court has found that there was no allegation of cheating and any physical abuse, thereby acquitting the respondent/A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323 and 506 of IPC, no such reasons are recorded to convict the respondent/A1 for the offences under Section 498-A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 and also in the case of Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.

In Guru Dutt Pathak’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under : (SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. … (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

The finding of the appellate Sessions Court is that the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, who are related to each other is not corroborated by any independent witness and in the absence of the alleged illegal intimacy not being proved, which is the basis for the present complaint, the harassment much less any physical harassment against P.W.1 stands disproved.

The reasoning given by the appellate Sessions Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or unfounded. When cogent reasoning is given to disbelieve the evidence of witnesses and finding that the respondent/A1 cannot be convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in passing the order of acquittal. The allegation of illegal intimacy is not proved and further same allegations are leveled against A1 to A8, however, A2 to A8 stand acquitted and A1 is convicted on the very same allegations. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot, in any manner, be held to be inconsistent with the evidence or unreasonable. Further when two views are possible, one favorable to the accused has to be considered.

For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal filed by the State fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.