LexMD. SHAKEEL versus STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S. HANMAKONDA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 622
A
MD. SHAKEEL
~
v.
STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S. HANMAKONDA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2008)
8
, NOVEMBER 6, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
A.-
Penal Code, 1860/Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
SS.
c 3048 and 498Als. 4 - Prosecution under - Conviction by
.
trial court, First appellate court and in Revision by High Court
- On appeal, held: Dismissal of Revision by High Court was
abrupt without indicating any basis or reason and without
"
analysis of various stands of the accused - Hence, matter
D
remitted to High Court.
Appellant-accused alongwith two others were
,_,._
convicted u/ss. 304-8 and 498A IPC and u/s. 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. First Appellate Court confirmed the
E
conviction of the appellant while acquitting the co-
accused. High Court dismissed the revision petition of the
appellant. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
High Court, the Court
F
-i·
HELD: The High Court has not indicated any basis
or reason as to why· the revision petition filed by the
appellant was without any substance. Appellant has
placed reliance on a dying declaration which does not,
G according to him, implicate the appellant. The High Court
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
y,
of the petition is not the correct way to dispose of the
'
.......
H
622
MD. SHAKEEL v. STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S.
623
HANMAKONDA & ANR.
revision petition. It is not that no arguable point was
A
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. Therefore the
order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is
remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with
B
law. (Paras 3 and 4] (624-H; 625-A, B, C, D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 197 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.2007 of the High c
~
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision
.,
Case No. 1053 of 2003 .
P. Venkat Reddy and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.
Prabhakar Rao and D. Bharathi Reddy for the
D
~"(
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
E
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
F
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') G
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
H
pleaded innocence, they are put on trial. The trial court found
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 15 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c Rs. {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
0 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further convicted
and sentenced to undergo R.I. fExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.