Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, K.MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Syed Fayaz, Ananthapur Dist. - Appellant
Versus
P.P., Hyd - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.789 of 2015
Decided on : 21-01-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – 207,209,313 and 374 – Offence of murder – Dangerous weapon - P.W.1 is mother of deceased and P.W.2 is son of P.W.1 and brother of deceased - Husband of P.W.1 died about 10 months prior to date of incident- After death of her husband, P.W.1 and her children planned to sell away their own house, which was acquired by her from her grandmother - On coming to know about same, accused and his family requested P.W.1 to lend an amount to them for purchase of some house site. Since the accused and his family members are close relatives of P.W.1, she promised to give them an amount as loan on finalization of sale - It is said that P.W.1 has not paid the amount as sale of house was not finalized - Whether really accused was responsible for death of deceased.
Finding of the Court:
From evidence of this witnesses also, it stands established that it was the accused, who came to house of P.W.1 on that day and it was he, who was responsible for death of deceased - As observed earlier, suggestions given to P.W.1 stand proved beyond doubt that accused went to house of P.W.1 on that day and caused the death of deceased - Having regard , court see no reason to disbelieve evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. At this stage, learned counsel tried to contend two things, namely the statements made by witnesses to media after the incident and prosecution failing to make any effort to show weapon used in commission of offence to P.W.1. Apart from that, he would contend that evidence of doctor is not placed for cross-examination - Though the post-mortem doctor in his evidence said many things about injuries and as to whether the knife could have caused injury, but in the last line of cross-examination, he stated, it is incorrect to suggest that by using a light weight weapon like a knife cut lacerations are not possible much less with uniform depth of injuries all through - Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for appellant that knife, which is alleged to have been seized could not have caused the injury as mentioned in report, cannot be accepted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C.Praveen Kumar, J.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
2. The present appeal came to be filed challenging the conviction and sentence dated 09.07.2015 passed in S.C.No.477 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Family Court - cum - Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, wherein and whereunder the sole accused, who was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., for causing the death of one Shaheen Taj (hereinafter, referred to as “the deceased”) on the 22.01.2013 by throttling her neck. Vide judgment, dated 09.07.2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the sole accused preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
3. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under:
P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1 and brother of the deceased. The husband of P.W.1 died about 10 months prior to the date of incident. After the death of her husband, P.W.1 and her children planned to sell away their own house, which was acquired by her from her grandmother. On coming to know about the same, the accused and his family requested P.W.1 to lend an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to them for purchase of some house site. Since the accused and his family members are close relatives of P.W.1, she promised to give them an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan on finalization of the sale. It is said that P.W.1 has not paid the amount as the sale of the house was not finalized.
4. The material on record also shows that the house, where P.W.1 is residing belongs to her maternal grandmother, which at the time of incident, stood in the name of P.W.1. While husband of P.W.1 was alive, she along with her husband entered into an agreement of sale in favour of one Doop Singh for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is said that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as an advance and thereafter, disputes arose.
5. While things stood thus, about two days prior to the date of incident, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and enquired about the sale of the house. Thereafter on 22.01.2013, at about 7.30 p.m., the accused again came to the house of P.W.1 which is second floor and enquired about the sale of the house, for which, P.W.1 informed him that the sale is not finalized and she cannot lend the amount. At that time P.W.1, her son Mohammad Ghouse, aged about 10 years and her daughter Shaheen Taj, aged about 8 years were in the second room of the house. By then, her daughter, who was suffering from fever, asked P.W.1 a sum of Rs.3.00 to buy medicines. After receiving Rs.3.00, the deceased went from second room to first room of their house to go outside. The accused, who was with P.W.1 at that time, followed the deceased into first room. In the first room, the accused is said to have caught hold of the night dress (i.e. blouse) of the deceased, pulled her towards him, drew a knife from his pocket and slit the throat of the deceased. On hearing the cries, the tenants (P.W.3 and P.W.4) who run a shop in the adjacent portion of the house of P.W.1 and some others came to the first room of the house. On seeing them, the accused left the place by keeping the knife in his pocket. The girl fell down with blood oozing from her throat. P.W.3, P.W.4 and other persons, who came there called the auto and then shifted the deceased to Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu, where the doctors declared her as brought dead.
6. On the same day, i.e. 22.01.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., while P.W.8 - S.I. of Police was in the police station, he received a report from P.W.1 basing on which, he registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P6 is the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
