Holding

The High Court's order dismissing the revision petition without reasons and without considering the dying declaration is set aside, and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Summary

MD Shakeel was convicted under IPC sections 304‑B and 498‑A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for the alleged dowry‑related death of his wife. The conviction was affirmed by the trial court and the first appellate court, while the co‑accused were acquitted. Shakeel filed a revision petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed without any reasons or analysis of the material, particularly a dying declaration that the appellant claimed exonerated him. The Supreme Court held that such an abrupt dismissal violated the principles of natural justice and that the High Court failed to consider the relevance of the dying declaration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

The validity of a High Court's dismissal of a revision petition without stating reasons.
Whether the dying declaration should be examined for its impact on the prosecution's case.
Whether procedural fairness requires the High Court to analyse the appellant's contentions before dismissing the revision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304-B, s. 498-A

Subjects

dowry deathIPC 304-BIPC 498-ADowry Prohibition Actrevision petitiondying declarationprocedural fairnessSupreme Court

Judgment

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 622

A MD. SHAKEEL ~
v.
STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S. HANMAKONDA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 2008)
, NOVEMBER 6, 2008
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
A.-

Penal Code, 1860/Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - SS.
c 3048 and 498Als. 4 - Prosecution under - Conviction by .
trial court, First appellate court and in Revision by High Court
- On appeal, held: Dismissal of Revision by High Court was
abrupt without indicating any basis or reason and without
analysis of various stands of the accused - Hence, matter "
D remitted to High Court.
,_,._
Appellant-accused alongwith two others were
convicted u/ss. 304-8 and 498A IPC and u/s. 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. First Appellate Court confirmed the
conviction of the appellant while acquitting the co-
E
accused. High Court dismissed the revision petition of the
appellant. Hence the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
High Court, the Court
F -i·

HELD: The High Court has not indicated any basis
or reason as to why· the revision petition filed by the
appellant was without any substance. Appellant has
placed reliance on a dying declaration which does not,
according to him, implicate the appellant. The High Court
G
came to an abrupt conclusion that the revision was
without any merit. It also did not analyse various stands
of the appellant. The way the High Court has disposed y,

of the petition is not the correct way to dispose of the .......
'
H 622
MD. SHAKEEL v. STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S. 623
HANMAKONDA & ANR.

revision petition. It is not that no arguable point was A
involved. As a matter of fact, the relevance of the dying
declaration and its effect on the prosecution case has not
been considered by the High Court at all. Therefore the
order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is
remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with B
law. (Paras 3 and 4] (624-H; 625-A, B, C, D]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 197 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.2007 of the High c
~

., Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision
Case No. 1053 of 2003 .

P. Venkat Reddy and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.
D
Prabhakar Rao and D. Bharathi Reddy for the
~"(
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is E
to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the
appellant in terms of section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). The
appellant who was accused No. 1 was convicted for offence
F
punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act (in short 'Act'). The allegation against the
appellant was that he and two others were responsible for the
suicide of Farzana (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased')
who was the wife of the appellant. The occurrence purportedly G
took place on 21.10.1998. 13 witnesses were examined before
"'( the learned Principle Sessions Judge, Warangal. It needs to
be noted that after the report was lodged, investigation was
done and charge sheet was filed. Since the accused persons
pleaded innocence, they are put on trial. The trial court found H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.

A that the appellant and two other accused were guilty of the
charges levelled against them. They were convicted and
sentenced. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable
under Section 304-B IPC and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and further
B he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay a fine of
c Rs. {000/- in.default to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Other two
co-accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year each and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/
- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each
0 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further convicted
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and pay
a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for three months each for the offence under Section 4 of the
Act. The appellant preferred an appeal before the First
E Appellate Authority i.e. learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge,
Warangal. The First Appellate Authority held that the conviction
and sentence as imposed so far as the appellant is concerned
do not warrant interference. However, the co-accused persons
were acquitted. The order of the First Appellate Authority was
challenged before the High Court by filing a revision petition
F as noted above. The same has been dismissed by the
impugned order.

2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that no reason has been indicated by the
G High Court while dismissing the revision petition. Learned
counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment of the
High court.

3. It is to be noted that the High Court has not indicated
any basis or reason as to why the revision petition filed by the
H
MD. SHAKEEL v. STATE POLICE THROUGH P.S. 625
HANMAKONDA & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

appellant was without any substance. Strong reliance is placed A
by learned counsel for the appellant on a dying declaration
purported to have been recorded on 21.10.1998 at about 5.50
P.M. which does not, according to him, implicate the appellant.
We find that the High court has referred to the factual scenario
for a major part of the judgment. It, however, came to an abrupt B
conclusion that the revision was without any merit. It also did
not analyse various stands of the appellant. The way the High
Court has disposed of the petition is not the correct way to
dispose of the revision petition. It is not that no arguable point
was involved. As a matter of fact, the relevance of the dying c I""
I

declaration and its effect on the prosecution case has not been \.
considered by the High Court at all.

4. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned
order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
consideration in accordance with law. We make it clear that we D
.,,,,
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

5. During the pendency of the appeal before this court, no
bail was granted to the appellant. It is pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has undergone more E
than two years of sentence. It is open to the appellant to move
the High Court for bail. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the
appellant is entitled to bail or not. Needless to say all relevant
'I
aspects shall be considered if an application for bail is filed. F
6. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the
High Court to take up the revision petition at an early date and
make an effort to dispose of the same as early as practicable
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of our
order. G

'(
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

- K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.