Sayyada Hyderi Begum vs Mir Mazhar Hussain 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 396 Tel

            THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                       CRL.R.C.No.886 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

None appeared for the revision petitioner on the previous date

of hearing and as well as today. This court, basing on the material

available on record, is constrained to dispose of the criminal revision

case since the said revision pertains to the year 2007.

2. This criminal revision case is filed by the de facto complainant

aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.09.2003 in Crl.A.No.146 of 2002,

on the file of the I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, by which, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.277

of 1998 dated 29.04.2002, on the file of XXII Metropolitan

Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad, was set aside.

3. A-1 to A-3 were accused of committing offences punishable

under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. After trial, respondent Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2

were convicted by the trial court in C.C.No.277 of 1998 and A-1 and

A-2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable

under Section 406 IPC. A-1 and A-2 were also sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three

months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. Further, A-1 and A-2 were also sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence

punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further,

A-1 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A IPC. A-3 was found not guilty for the aforesaid

offences and he was, accordingly, acquitted. On appeal, the said

judgment of the trial court was set aside by the lower appellate court

in Crl.A.No.146 of 2002 and, accordingly, acquitted A-1 and A-2.

Questioning the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2/A-1 and A-2, this

revision is filed by the de facto complainant.

4. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the

record.

5. The contentions raised in the criminal revision case are that the

judgment of the lower appellate court is illegal, improper and

incorrect; that the evidence on record was not appreciated by the

lower appellate court in proper perspective and it has erroneously set

aside the judgment of the trial court. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 is

trustworthy and the same would be sufficient for convicting the

accused, but the lower appellate court has failed to consider the same.

Accordingly, it is prayed for setting aside the judgment of the lower

appellate court by confirming the judgment of the trial court.

6. On a perusal of the entire material on record, it is evident that

the lower appellate court, after finding the material contradictions in

the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, has rightly come to the conclusion that

when any doubt arises about the case of the prosecution and its

evidence, the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt and,

accordingly, disbelieved the version of the prosecution and found the

accused not guilty of the offences and, accordingly, acquitted them.

The lower appellate court observed in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the

judgment as under:

"For the reasons discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is only after talak was pronounced and communicated to P.W.1 she came up with this complaint alleging that the accused had harassed and ill treated her and one way stating about sending her maintenance till November, 97. If we carefully scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1 it gives us a clear picture that this present complaint is filed only for re-union and not for punishing the accused. As I have already discussed, the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold that the accused harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry and the same is not sufficient to find the accused guilty.

In the instant case, I found that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the husband or her in-laws have demanded or misappropriated the jahez articles presented at the time of marriage of the accused. After reading the evidence of the prosecution carefully, I hold that the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt".

7. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the lower

appellate court, I do not find any material to deviate from such

findings and the revision petitioner has not shown any ground to

interfere with such findings of the lower appellate court. The revision

is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 02.02.2022 Lrkm