Back
K. LAKSHMAN, K. SUJANA
Mohammad Jaleel. S/o. Shaik Dawood – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana Through Inspector of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.SUJANA, J.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.04.2015 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.702 of 2006 wherein, the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Safia Begum was the wife of accused and their marriage took place about 18 years prior to April, 2006. Out of their wedlock, the deceased gave birth to three daughters and a son. PW.3 – Salma, is the elder daughter. After about ten years of marriage, the accused got addicted to alcohol and used to threaten the deceased for money and also used to beat her frequently. Several times PWs.1 and 2 who are brothers of the deceased made efforts to convince the accused to mend his ways but their efforts failed. On 01.04.2006 the accused demanded money from his wife to purchase liquor and when she denied to give money and warned the accused to
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, recognizing the act was committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel.
Reliability of dying declarations is crucial for conviction under IPC Section 304(ii); conviction upheld as statements were consistent and trustworthy.
Dying declarations, if consistent and credible, can support a conviction without corroboration, as established by the court.
Point of law: Statement given by the deceased in her dying declaration reveals that the appellant was in a fully drunken stage on the night when the incident took place.
Reliance on dying declaration requires corroboration; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction without proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The court ruled that the appellant committed culpable homicide, not murder, establishing that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, albeit strong, did not demonstrate premeditation.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent.
Dying declarations can serve as sole basis for conviction if deemed reliable, conscious, and voluntary.
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
