ZAHEED BEGUM Vs. P.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the Criminal Appeals filed by the accused in Sessions Case No.499 of 2010 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad, filed under Sec. 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). The trial Court while finding the accused in the above referred Sessions Case guilty under various Ss. convicted them under Sec. 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and imposed sentence for the offences under Sec. 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). The trial Court having found all the four accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC, sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months. In addition to this, A1 was found guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 with default stipulation of one (1) year.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the conviction, all the appellants have filed Criminal Appeals. A1 has filed Criminal Appeal No.978 of 2014, whereas A2 to A4 have filed Criminal Appeal No.917 of 2014 and seeks to assail the conviction on various grounds. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral evidence in a proper way. Unnecessary importance was given to the evidence of interested witnesses. The trial Court ought not to have relied on the confession said to have been made by A1 since it is inadmissible under Sec. 25 of Indian Evidence Act. The trial Court should have seen that the prosecution was not able to examine the son of deceased, who is figured as an eyewitness to the alleged offence, who said to have informed the alleged assault of appellant No.1 against his wife, the deceased. The trial Court failed to see that even as per the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 appellant and his wife were living in a separate house. The weapon said to have been used by A1 in the commission of offence is not recovered. Therefore, they sought for setting aside the judgment and prayed for their acquittal for the above referred penal provisions. Since both the appeals are filed against the same judgment, even though, two separate appeals are filed, they can be disposed by a common judgment. Hence, this common Judgment.

(3.) Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is just and necessary to verify the allegations made against the appellants in the charge sheet filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Falaknuma. According to the said charge sheet, one Smt. Ameena Begum (herein after will be referred as 'deceased') is daughter of Mohd Abdul Wahad and PW.1 Smt.Ghousia Begum. She was married to appellant No.1 herein in October 1999 and at the time of marriage, as per the demand made by appellant No.1 and his family members, the parents of the deceased have presented an amount of Rs.15,000.00, and gold ornaments weighing 3 Tulas and other Jahez articles. The deceased joined her husband and they lived happily for a period of six months. But subsequently, all the appellants started harassing the deceased with a demand for additional dowry and they used to beat her often.