Sec.304 B of I.P.C. - there is no evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellant


 After the alleged demand of gold karra two months  after  the
marriage, Sharanjit Kaur went to her house, again came back to  the  marital
house and again went to her father’s  house  and  again  came  back  to  the
marital house.  In our considered view, the alleged  demand  of  gold  karra
about two months after  the    marriage  cannot  be  said  to  constitute  a
proximate live link with the  death  of  deceased  Sharanjit  Kaur  and  the
conviction of the appellant under Section  304B  IPC  cannot  be  sustained.

Even though there is no evidence that the deceased  was  treated
with cruelty or harassment in connection with  the  demand  of  dowry  “soon
before her death” by the appellant, in our view, evidence  on  record  makes
out an offence  under  Section  498A  IPC.  So  far  as  the  sentence,  the
occurrence was of the year 1997.  The appellant is  having  three  grown  up
children. The appellant has already  undergone  sentence  for  a  period  of
about fifteen months.   In the facts and circumstances  of  the  case,   for
the conviction under Section 498A, she is sentenced to undergo  imprisonment

already undergone.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS