Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Syed Khadeer Ali on 8 June, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 505 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. 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.
2. 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
2 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
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.
3. On appeal, the respondent/A1 was acquitted vide
impugned judgment dated 22.10.2019 in Criminal Appeal
No.13 of 2019.
4. 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.
3 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
5. 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.
4 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Heard Sri Sudershan, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Sri Palle Sriharinath,
learned counsel for the respondent/A1.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the
appellate Sessions Court erred in reversing the conviction
5 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
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.
10. 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
6 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
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.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna
Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of
Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 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
(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688
(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116
7 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be
established on record of the Court.
12. 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."
13. 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
8 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
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.
14. 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
9 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
two views are possible, one favorable to the accused has to be
considered.
15. 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.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.06.2022
kvs
10 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.505 OF 2020
Date:08.06.2022
kvs
11 KS, J
Crla_505_2020
