Telangana High Court
Mohammed Bilal vs State Of Telangana And Another on 12 July, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.87 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel representing Md. Sadath Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021 in S.C. NO.541 of 2016 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the said S.C. The offence alleged against him and other accused is under Section - 306 of IPC. The petitioner herein - accused No.2 filed an application under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge in the said S.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021, and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.01.2022, dismissed the said petition.
4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein and accused Nos.1 and 3 are as follows: 2
KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022
i) LW.1 - Mohd. Imraanuddin is the builder and resident of Achi Reddy Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.
ii) He married the deceased - Tabassum @ Farhana Begum in the year 2013, and it is third marriage to him. They blessed with a baby boy.
iii) There are disputes between LW.1 and Murtuza and Wadood, rowdy sheeters of Rajendranagar Police Station.
iv) Due to the said disputes, the accused persons including the petitioner herein and Mr. Murtuza, rowdy sheeter, gave a complaint against LW.1 with false allegations in Shaliband and Bahadurpura Police Stations.
v) Due to the said complaints, LW.1 was very busy, in disturbed mood and was not going home. On account of the same, the deceased, wife of LW.1, worried as she loves LW.1 a lot.
vi) Further, the accused persons and the said Mr. Murtuza, rowdy sheeter, threatened LW.1 that they would implicate him in a case under P.D. Act since LW.1 is also a rowdy sheeter of Bahadurpura Police Station. Even, they demanded the deceased, wife of LW.1 and his 3 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022 parents to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh, or else, they would implicate LW.1 in a case under P.D. Act.
vii) LW.1 informed the said fact to the deceased. Then, she went into mental depression.
viii) With the said mental depression, on 23.03.2016, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and set ablaze. She was shifted to Asra Hospital immediately, and while undergoing treatment, she died.
5. On the complaint lodged by LW.1, the husband of the deceased, the Police, Falaknuma, have registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2016, and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and accused Nos.1 and 3 for the aforesaid offence.
6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 herein as LW.1; his first wife as LW.2; his mother as LW.3; his mother's second husband as LW.4 and the parents of the deceased as LWs.7 and 8 respectively. On considering the said statements only, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and accused Nos.1 4 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022 and 3. The same was taken on file vide S.C. No.541 of 2016 against the accused for the aforesaid offence. During pendency of the said S.C., the petitioner herein had filed Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021 under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. for his discharge, and the learned Judge vide order dated 21.01.2022, dismissed the said petition.
7. Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner herein. In the entire charge sheet, there is no mention about the instigation on the part of the petitioner herein. In the dying declaration, the deceased did not utter the name of the petitioner herein. The dying declaration is credible and trustworthy evidence. Even then, the Court below without considering the said aspects dismissed the discharge application. There is no corroboration between the complaint of respondent No.2 and the dying declaration. There is no material of whatsoever on record to show that the petitioner herein abetted the deceased in committing suicide. There is also no evidence of whatsoever on record which resulted in conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Without considering all the 5 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022 said aspects, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by him seeking for his discharge in the above Sessions Case.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court below has passed a reasoned order and that there is sufficient material to proceed with trial against the petitioner and other accused. The Investigating Officer on consideration of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses laid the charge sheet and that the Court below dismissed the discharge application. It is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the revision.
9. As stated above, all the witnesses including LW.1 has specifically stated about the role played by the petitioner herein - accused No.2 in commission of offence. The petitioner herein being reporter along with other accused being human rights activists and rowdy sheeter - Murtuza lodged complaints against LW.1 in Shaliband and Bahadurpura Police Stations. They have also threatened LW.1 that they would implicate him in a case under the provisions of P.D. Act. They have also demanded the family members of LW.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. The deceased loves her husband, 6 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022 LW.1 so much. Out of such love and affection, she could not tolerate the threats given by the petitioner, other accused and the rowdy sheeter towards her husband including the threat of lodging complaints and the demand of amount of Rs.1.00 lakh etc., which caused her husband not coming to the house for about four (04) days. Having seen the same, the deceased went into mental depression and ultimately committed suicide by herself pouring kerosene on her and setting herself ablaze. Thus, prima facie, there is specific allegation of abetment against the petitioner herein and other accused in commission of offence. It is relevant to note that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. Of course, the deceased has not mentioned the name of the petitioner herein. However, she has mentioned about the threat given to her husband.
10. It is relevant to note that genuineness, reliability, credibility or otherwise has to be decided by the trial Court. Burden of proof and relevancy of dying declaration always lies on the prosecution. It is put to strict proof. It is for the trial Court to discard or disbelieve the dying declaration on the analysis of the entire evidence available on record including oral and documentary. The trial Court will analyze 7 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022 the reliability of dying declaration and its admissibility basing on the depositions of witnesses.
11. Though in the dying declaration, the deceased has not referred to the name of the petitioner, as stated above, other witnesses have specifically stated about the act of abetment committed by the petitioner herein and other accused persons that led to the deceased committing suicide. The said aspects cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. These are triable issues. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence.
12. It is also relevant to note that in Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to proceed against any person for the offence punishable under Section - 306 of the IPC, there must be present an active act or direct act of such a nature as would lead the deceased to commit suicide. The offence of abetment of suicide requires presence of extreme and compelling circumstances and the act alleged against the accused must be seen to be committed by the accused with intention to push the deceased into desperate situation leading to commission of suicide. 1 . 2022 (1) SCJ 372 8 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022
13. As discussed above, in the present case, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and other accused. Prima facie, there is an active act and direct act of abetment on the part of the petitioner and other accused and out of such act, the deceased committed suicide. As stated above, however, the said aspects cannot be considered by a Court in a petition filed under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence. The trial Court has considered the said aspects and also the scope of Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. in the impugned order. On consideration of the facts and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments, the Court below gave a finding that at the time of framing charge, the Court has to see whether there is any prima facie material against the petitioner. When there is prima facie material against the petitioner, whether case ends in conviction or acquittal cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Section - 227 of the Cr.P.C. Mere presumption by the Court is sufficient to frame charge against the accused.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order is a reasoned order and does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference 9 KL, J Crl.R.C. No.87 of 2022 by this Court. The petitioner herein has failed to make out any ground to set aside the impugned order and, therefore, the revision fails and liable to be dismissed.
15. The present Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed confirming the order dated 21.01.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.1281 of 2021 in S.C. No.541 of 2016 by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 12th July, 2022 Mgr