SHAIK JALEEL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1, aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 19/11/2019, in S.C.No.223 of 2015, on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 304-B, 498-A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to Sadiya Begum (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), in the month of April, 2014. At the time of marriage, gold articles and Rs.70,000.00 were given towards dowry. Two months after the marriage of appellant and deceased, accused No.2 started making allegations that the deceased was having an affair with her father-in-law, for which reason, the deceased was taken back to the house of PW.1 (mother of the deceased). 25 days after the deceased was taken to the house of PW.1, the accused Nos.1, 2, and other relatives went to the house of PW.1 and asked PW.1 to send the deceased back. However, the deceased refused to join them since the appellant attributed unchastity to the deceased. When the appellant undertook to live separately in a rented house, the deceased was sent along with the appellant, and they started living in the rented premises in the house of PW.5. There was a demand for additional dowry of Rs.50,000.00 by the appellant for the purpose of going to Dubai. On 19/1/2015, the deceased and the appellant attended a function at Rudrur Village, and on the next day, they went to the rented house. On 20/1/2015 at about 8.00 P.M., PW.1 received a phone call from the deceased, who stated that she was never happy with her husband, and the call was disconnected by the appellant. On the same day, at midnight, one Ameer Rasool, who is a neighbor of the deceased, informed PW.1 that the deceased was found dead lying on the cot. Immediately, PW.1 and others went to the rented premises of appellant and deceased in the house of PW.5 and they found the deceased dead with injuries on her throat. PW.1 suspected that the appellant had throttled the deceased and accordingly, she lodged a Telugu written complaint on the next day, i.e., 21/1/2015 at 9.00 A.M. The complaint was received by PW.13 and after issuing the FIR, investigation was handed over to PW.15. PW.15 went to the scene of offence, conducted the inquest panchanama, and a rough sketch was drawn at the scene, and thereafter, the dead body was sent for the post-mortem examination. PW.12 conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries:

(3.) On the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, who is arrayed as accused No.1, and against the mother of the appellant, who is arrayed as accused No.2.