Mohammed Bilal vs State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3637 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.87 OF 2022
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel representing Md.

Sadath Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order

dated 21.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021 in S.C. NO.541

of 2016 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the

said S.C. The offence alleged against him and other accused is under

Section - 306 of IPC. The petitioner herein - accused No.2 filed an

application under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge in

the said S.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021, and the learned Sessions

Judge vide order dated 21.01.2022, dismissed the said petition.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations leveled against the

petitioner herein and accused Nos.1 and 3 are as follows:

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

i) LW.1 - Mohd. Imraanuddin is the builder and resident of

Achi Reddy Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

ii) He married the deceased - Tabassum @ Farhana Begum

in the year 2013, and it is third marriage to him. They

blessed with a baby boy.

iii) There are disputes between LW.1 and Murtuza and

Wadood, rowdy sheeters of Rajendranagar Police Station.

iv) Due to the said disputes, the accused persons including

the petitioner herein and Mr. Murtuza, rowdy sheeter,

gave a complaint against LW.1 with false allegations in

Shaliband and Bahadurpura Police Stations.

v) Due to the said complaints, LW.1 was very busy, in

disturbed mood and was not going home. On account of

the same, the deceased, wife of LW.1, worried as she

loves LW.1 a lot.

vi) Further, the accused persons and the said Mr. Murtuza,

rowdy sheeter, threatened LW.1 that they would

implicate him in a case under P.D. Act since LW.1 is also

a rowdy sheeter of Bahadurpura Police Station. Even,

they demanded the deceased, wife of LW.1 and his

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

parents to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, or else, they

would implicate LW.1 in a case under P.D. Act.

vii) LW.1 informed the said fact to the deceased. Then, she

went into mental depression.

viii) With the said mental depression, on 23.03.2016, she

committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and

set ablaze. She was shifted to Asra Hospital

immediately, and while undergoing treatment, she died.

5. On the complaint lodged by LW.1, the husband of the

deceased, the Police, Falaknuma, have registered a case in Crime

No.119 of 2016, and on completion of investigation, the Investigating

Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and accused

Nos.1 and 3 for the aforesaid offence.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 herein as LW.1; his

first wife as LW.2; his mother as LW.3; his mother's second husband

as LW.4 and the parents of the deceased as LWs.7 and 8 respectively.

On considering the said statements only, the Investigating Officer has

laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and accused Nos.1

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

and 3. The same was taken on file vide S.C. No.541 of 2016 against

the accused for the aforesaid offence. During pendency of the said

S.C., the petitioner herein had filed Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021 under

Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. for his discharge, and the learned Judge

vide order dated 21.01.2022, dismissed the said petition.

7. Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner, would submit that the contents of the charge sheet

lack the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner

herein. In the entire charge sheet, there is no mention about the

instigation on the part of the petitioner herein. In the dying

declaration, the deceased did not utter the name of the petitioner

herein. The dying declaration is credible and trustworthy evidence.

Even then, the Court below without considering the said aspects

dismissed the discharge application. There is no corroboration

between the complaint of respondent No.2 and the dying declaration.

There is no material of whatsoever on record to show that the

petitioner herein abetted the deceased in committing suicide. There is

also no evidence of whatsoever on record which resulted in conviction

of the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Without considering all the

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

said aspects, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by

him seeking for his discharge in the above Sessions Case.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

would submit that the Court below has passed a reasoned order and

that there is sufficient material to proceed with trial against the

petitioner and other accused. The Investigating Officer on

consideration of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses laid the

charge sheet and that the Court below dismissed the discharge

application. It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. With the

said submissions, he sought to dismiss the revision.

9. As stated above, all the witnesses including LW.1 has

specifically stated about the role played by the petitioner herein -

accused No.2 in commission of offence. The petitioner herein being

reporter along with other accused being human rights activists and

rowdy sheeter - Murtuza lodged complaints against LW.1 in

Shaliband and Bahadurpura Police Stations. They have also threatened

LW.1 that they would implicate him in a case under the provisions of

P.D. Act. They have also demanded the family members of LW.1 to

pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. The deceased loves her husband,

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

LW.1 so much. Out of such love and affection, she could not tolerate

the threats given by the petitioner, other accused and the rowdy

sheeter towards her husband including the threat of lodging

complaints and the demand of amount of Rs.1.00 lakh etc., which

caused her husband not coming to the house for about four (04) days.

Having seen the same, the deceased went into mental depression and

ultimately committed suicide by herself pouring kerosene on her

and setting herself ablaze. Thus, prima facie, there is specific

allegation of abetment against the petitioner herein and other accused

in commission of offence. It is relevant to note that the dying

declaration of the deceased was recorded. Of course, the deceased has

not mentioned the name of the petitioner herein. However, she has

mentioned about the threat given to her husband.

10. It is relevant to note that genuineness, reliability, credibility

or otherwise has to be decided by the trial Court. Burden of proof and

relevancy of dying declaration always lies on the prosecution. It is put

to strict proof. It is for the trial Court to discard or disbelieve the

dying declaration on the analysis of the entire evidence available on

record including oral and documentary. The trial Court will analyze

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

the reliability of dying declaration and its admissibility basing on the

depositions of witnesses.

11. Though in the dying declaration, the deceased has not

referred to the name of the petitioner, as stated above, other witnesses

have specifically stated about the act of abetment committed by the

petitioner herein and other accused persons that led to the deceased

committing suicide. The said aspects cannot be considered in a

petition filed under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. These are triable

issues. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence.

12. It is also relevant to note that in Kanchan Sharma v. State

of Uttar Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order

to proceed against any person for the offence punishable under

Section - 306 of the IPC, there must be present an active act or direct

act of such a nature as would lead the deceased to commit suicide. The

offence of abetment of suicide requires presence of extreme and

compelling circumstances and the act alleged against the accused must

be seen to be committed by the accused with intention to push the

deceased into desperate situation leading to commission of suicide.

. 2022 (1) SCJ 372

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

13. As discussed above, in the present case, prima facie, there

are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and other accused.

Prima facie, there is an active act and direct act of abetment on the

part of the petitioner and other accused and out of such act, the

deceased committed suicide. As stated above, however, the said

aspects cannot be considered by a Court in a petition filed under

Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has to face trial and prove

his innocence. The trial Court has considered the said aspects and

also the scope of Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. in the impugned order.

On consideration of the facts and also the principle laid down by the

Apex Court in several judgments, the Court below gave a finding that

at the time of framing charge, the Court has to see whether there is

any prima facie material against the petitioner. When there is prima

facie material against the petitioner, whether case ends in conviction

or acquittal cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Section - 227

of the Cr.P.C. Mere presumption by the Court is sufficient to frame

charge against the accused.

14. In view of the above, the impugned order is a reasoned

order and does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference

KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022

by this Court. The petitioner herein has failed to make out any ground

to set aside the impugned order and, therefore, the revision fails and

liable to be dismissed.

15. The present Criminal Revision Case is accordingly

dismissed confirming the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.

No.1281 of 2021 in S.C. No.541 of 2016 by the learned II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

revision shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 12th July, 2022 Mgr