Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

P.W.2 - Shaik Jaffarvali, father of the deceased Malluri Shaik Riyajunnisa, filed Criminal Appeal No.1198 of 2012 challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that the evidence available on record directly pointing out the complicity of accused Nos.2 and 3; and when accused No.1 was found guilty based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 based on the same evidence for various charges is an error committed by the Court below and that the consistent evidence available on record directly pointing out the complicity of accused Nos.2 and 3, therefore, accused Nos.2 and 3 also responsible for the death of Malluri Shaik Riyajunnisa, but the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, committed serious error in acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. while finding accused No.1 guilty for various charges and requested to set aside the order of acquittal finding accused Nos.2 and 3 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.922 of 2012, contended that absolutely there is no evidence to establish that the deceased Malluri Shaik Riyajunnisa was subjected to harassment for her failure to meet the illegal demand soon before her death and no specific instance MSM,J and BKM,J CrlAs_922 and 1198_2012 of harassment or cruelty spoken by any of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 to rope the accused with the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B or 302 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. Moreover, the medical evidence is consistent and the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding after delivery of pre-mature child and not on account of alleged ill-treatment. Therefore, the question of drawing presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act to find accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. does not arise. Apart from that no complaint was lodged before the death of Malluri Shaik Riyajunnisa complaining such cruelty for her failure to meet the illegal demand for payment of Rs.16,00,000/- to purchase house site at Madanapalle, having kept quiet for substantial period, suddenly report was lodged by P.W.1 making serious allegations though her death was due to excessive bleeding after delivery of pre-mature child. Therefore, recording of conviction against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the D.P.Act, which is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.922 of 2012 is an error apparent on the face of record. She also further contended that when there was no evidence against accused Nos.2 and 3, acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be reversed merely because accused No.1 was found guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the D.P.Act. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in "Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh1"

3) Whether conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the for the offence punishable under Sections 498- A, 304-B and 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act and accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the D.P.Act, is in accordance with law? If not, liable to be set aside?

So far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they are residing at Madanapalle, which is far-off place to the scene of offence, hence, the question of accused Nos.2 and 3 subjecting the deceased Malluri Shaik Riyajunnisa to cruelty cannot be accepted. Therefore, the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act cannot be disturbed even after reappraisal of entire evidence.

In view of our foregoing discussion, the conviction and sentence passed against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the D.P.Act are hereby confirmed while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Further, the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act is hereby confirmed.