| Sl No. | Title | Coram | Date of Judgement | Subject | HeadNotes | |
| 31 | MD.SHAKEEL Vs. STATE POLICE TR.P.S.HANMAKONDA & ANR. | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA | 06/11/2008 | Penal Code, 1860/Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 304B and 498A/s. 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 in | Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court 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 | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 32 | AMBIKA MANDAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW JHARKHAND | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA | 28/11/2008 | Administration of Criminal Justice: Disposal of appeal of accused without his being represented - Held: The accused had no notice of transfer of his appeal and when the matter was taken up by High Court, there was no representation - Judgment of | Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: Originally, the appeal was pending before the Patna High Court and on reorganization of States, it was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court. The appellant had no notice and, therefore, when the matter | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 33 | PREM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA | 07/01/2009 | Penal Code, 1860: s. 306 and 304-B - Dowry death - Death of daughter-in-law by burning - Acquittal of mother-in-law holding it to be a case of suicide - However, conviction by High Court - Justification of - Held: Justified - Post mortem report | Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The explanation to s. 304 B IPC refers to dowry 'as having the same meaning as in s. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961'. The definition by amendment includes not only the period before marriage but | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 34 | KISHANGIRI MANGALGIRI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY | 28/01/2009 | Penal Code, 1860 - ss.306, 498A, 109 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.3 - Abetment of suicide, dowry demand - Torture for not bringing sufficient dowry - Letters on record written by husband demanding money - Trial Court convicted accused on the | Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A person, abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, b | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 35 | SUNDAR BABU & ORS. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, P. SATHASIVAM | 19/02/2009 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Complaint against husband, his parents, sister and maternal grandmother under s.498A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Husband had purportedly left for USA six months af | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under Sec.482 CrPC is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid down there | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 36 | ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P. | Coram: DALVEER BHANDARI, HARJIT SINGH BEDI | 20/02/2009 | Penal Code, 1860: s. 306 - Suicide committed by a married woman - Mother-in-law, father-in- law and brother-in-law of deceased acquitted - Husband convicted on the basis of a letter alleged to have been written by him - HELD: Letter having not | Allowing the appeal, the Court. HELD : 1.1 The excerpt from the evidence of PW-11, the father of the deceased, cannot be said to be proof of the document Ext. P-20 as no statement was made that he recognized the handwriting or the signature of | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 37 | SAMIRA KHANUM Vs. MD.ASFAR TOWHEED AND ANR. | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY | 06/03/2009 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Complaint u/ss. 498-A and 406 IPC and u/ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Application for quashing the proceedings - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held : High Court order passed without indicati | Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD : The High Court has not indicated any basis or reason for exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. The application was disposed of in a casual manner. Therefore, the ord | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 38 | RAJESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P. | Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY | 25/03/2009 | Penal Code, 1860 - ss.304B and 498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.3 and 4 - Wife died of burns five years after marriage - Husband and in-laws allegedly burnt her to death after pouring kerosene on her - Deceased was allegedly tortured and ha | Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The necessary ingredients of the Section 304B of IPC are as follows: a) the death of the woman was caused due to burns, bodily injuries or due to unnatural circumstances; b) the death should be with | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 39 | SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. | Coram: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH | 13/05/2009 | Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 498-A - A married woman found dead in her matrimonial home - FIR against husband for offences punishable u/ss 302, 498-A IPC and s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - | Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Though the doctor (PW-10) who conducted the autopsy, state in her report that the death was caused by asphyxia, may be due to smothering, but in her cross examination she admitted that no symptoms of asphy | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 40 | SAVITRI AGARWAL & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. | Coram: D.K. JAIN, R.M. LODHA | 10/07/2009 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Accusation of committing offence u/ss. 498-A, 304-B/34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Grant of anticipatory bail by Sessions Court - Cancellation of, by High Court - Sust | Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the High Court committed a serious error in reversing the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. The Sessions Judge passed t | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 41 | STATE OF U.P. Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. | Coram: DALVEER BHANDARI, HARJIT SINGH BEDI | 03/09/2009 | Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 304-B, 498-A, and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act-A married woman harassed for dowry and burnt alive-Conviction by trial court u/ss.302/34 and 498-A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Act-Acquittal by High Court holdi | Allowing the appeal as regards the surviving respondent, the Court Held : 1.1. The finding of the High Court that when the charge u/s. 304-B IPC was held to have failed, there was no logic in convicting the accused for offences punishable u/ss. | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 1 2 3 |
Comments
Post a Comment