SYED MOSIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. G. Balaram, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The appellant/accused was found guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 306 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and the accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C., in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and with a further direction that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The Sub-Inspector of police, Shankarampet (R) filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.34 of 1994 of Shankarampet Police Station under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC with the following allegations; The deceased Smt. Sardar Begum @ Nazma Begum was given in marriage to the accused about six years back and they were blessed with three children. The accused was unemployed and he was doing private work. For Some period, the accused and his family stayed with Syed Fazuluddin, who is the brother of deceased. Thereafter, they went to their native place and there the accused could not look after his family welfare and used to harass the deceased to bring money from her parents house, due to which she used to visit her brother and used to take money. About six months back, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased. On 28-6-1994 evening, brother of the deceased received a message that his sister died by drowning in an agricultural well. On his enquiry through one Osman Ali, the son of the deceased, he came to know that accused beat the deceased, resulting which she committed suicide by drowning into the well and died. On the basis of the complaint given by the brother of the deceased, a case has been registered, investigated into and filed charge sheet.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak, had taken cognizance of the case against the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and committed the matter to the Court of Session, which was made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak, and the learned Judge after recording the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 and making Exs.P1 to P.7 arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of the accused as against both the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. had been established. Sri G. Balaram, the learned counsel representing the appellant, would submit that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence available on record and on the strength of the evidence of P.W.1, the conviction had been recorded, which cannot be sustained. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence available on record and would contend that even Ex.P1-complaint given by P.W.1 shows that as there was some difficulty in pulling on with the life, his brother-in-law was beating his sister for money and his sister used to take some money from them and it is also specific in Ex.P1 that a message was given to P.W.1 that his sister died by falling into a well.