Full Judgment Text
MD. SHAKEEL
v.
STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S. HANMAKONDA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 6, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 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 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') 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 pleaded innocence, they are put on
trial. The trial court found 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 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 Rs. 1,000/- 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 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further convicted
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and pay a fine
of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months each for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. The
appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e.
learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The First
Appellate Authority held that the conviction and sentence as imposed
so far as the appellant is concerned do not warrant interference.
However, the co-accused persons were acquitted. The order of the
First Appellate Authority was challenged before the High Court by
filing a revision petition as noted above. The same has been
dismissed by the impugned order.
2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that no reason has been indicated by the High Court while
dismissing the revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondent-
State supported the judgment of the High court.
3. It is to be noted that the High Court has not indicated any basis
or reason as to why the revision petition filed by the appellant was
without any substance. Strong reliance is placed by learned counsel
for the appellant on a dying declaration purported to have been
recorded on 21.10.1998 at about 5.50 P.M. which does not,
according to him, implicate the appellant. We find that the High court
has referred to the factual scenario for a major part of the judgment.
It, however, 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 of the petition is not
the correct way to dispose of the revision petition. It is not that no
arguable point was 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.
4. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned order of
the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in
accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case.
5. During the pendency of the appeal before this court, no bail
was granted to the appellant. It is pointed out by learned counsel for
the appellant that the appellant has undergone more than two years
of sentence. It is open to the appellant to move the High Court for
bail. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
question as to whether the appellant is entitled to bail or not.
Needless to say all relevant aspects shall be considered if an
application for bail is filed.
6. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High
Court to take up the revision petition at an early date and make an
effort to dispose of the same as early as practicable preferably within
six months from the date of receipt of our order.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.