Md.Moin, Warangal District vs Md.Akbar, Warangal District And Anr., ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4569 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4569 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Md.Moin, Warangal District vs Md.Akbar, Warangal District And Anr., ... on 7 April, 2025

                                 1



       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.914 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:

The appellant is questioning the judgment dated 23.02.2012

in Crl.A.No.17 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge (FTC) Warangal, Warangal District.

2. Heard Sri K.Dinesh Chakrawarty, the learned counsel for

the appellant/complainant and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The appellant is the defacto complaint. On the basis of the

complaint filed by him with the Police, the Police investigated the

case, and filed a charge sheet under Sections 306 and 498-A of

IPC against the respondent/accused. The trial Court acquitted

the accused under Section 306 of IPC and convicted him under

Section 498-A of IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the

accused approached the Sessions Court. The leaned Sessions

Judge, vide Crl.A.No.17 of 2012 by judgment dated 26.04.2012,

acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section

498-A of IPC. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal

is filed.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married

to Saleema Bee (deceased), who is the daughter of the appellant

herein, 12 years prior to her death. At the time of marriage,

dowry was given, and the deceased gave birth to two boys, who

were aged 11 years and 7 years at the time of incident. The

accused was addicted to alcohol. He used to take money from the

deceased and was not doing any work.

5. According to the prosecution, one month prior to the date of

the incident, the accused started harassing the deceased to sell

the house property in which they were staying, which had been

given as dowry. Unable to bear the continuous harassment by

the accused, the deceased committed suicide on 25.11.2010 by

jumping into Laknavaram tank along with her two children.

6. The Police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the

offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

7. The learned trial Judge, having considered the evidence on

record, found that the allegation of abetting suicide was not

proved, and accordingly acquitted the accused under Section 306

of IPC, while convicting him under Section 498-A of IPC.

8. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the

entire allegation of harassment was informed to the parents of the

deceased by the deceased. The witnesses have made

improvements during the course of the trial, and the entire case

relied upon by the trial Court was based on improvements made

during the trial. There are contradictions and omissions in the

evidence of the prime witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the

parents of the deceased. There was no direct demand made at

any point of time by the accused, and the entire information

regarding the harassment was conveyed only through the

deceased.

9. Learned Sessions Judge further relied on two letters,

Exs.P.3 and P.5, written by the accused. In the said letters, there

was no demand for dowry.

10. For the reasons that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 revealed

that the allegation that the deceased was being harassed was only

conveyed by the deceased, and the letters which were filed did not

reflect any demand for additional dowry or instances of

harassment, the accused was acquitted.

11. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi

Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1,

held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the

appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can

be termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence on

record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal

adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the

order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

12. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the

settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in

reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70 as follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that although the allegations made in the Court were an

improvement, however, the said allegations were not made at the

earliest point of time, since they were sad on account of the death

of the deceased.

14. Even going by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the information

regarding the alleged harassment was given by the deceased. At

no point of time, the accused has demanded any dowry from

P.Ws.1 and 2. The documentary evidence, which are Ex.P.3 and

P.5, do not reflect any demand for dowry.

15. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the order