Section 498A, 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code - case of the prosecution that the husband was keen in his extra-marital affair and that had led to more marital discord and bitterness. -The in-laws, as alleged, used to take away the income earned by her. - A time came when she was compelled to stay on the terrace of the house where she committed suicide on 4th of March, 2004 - Apex court held that the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.-the involvement of the other accused persons, that is, appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, we find that there is no allegation of any kind of physical torture. The evidence brought on record against them with regard to cruelty is absolutely sketchy and not convincing. - It has been alleged that the mother-in-law used to rob her money which she earned as wages. The said fact has really not been established. As far as appellant no. 4, Jesuben, is concerned, there is only one singular allegation that at one public place, i.e. in a 'mela', she had threatened the deceased that she would be divorced by her husband. On the basis of the said evidence, it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. Once we are holding that the accused-appellants are not guilty of the offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC, the conviction under Section 201 IPC is also not sustainable. -2015 SC MSKLAWREPORTS

Section 498A, 306, 201 and 114  of  the Indian Penal Code - case of the prosecution that the husband was keen in his extra-marital affair and that had led  to  more  marital
discord and bitterness. -The in-laws, as alleged, used to take away  the income earned by her. - A time came when she was compelled to stay on the terrace of the house where she committed suicide on 4th of March,  2004 - Apex court held that the accused may have been involved in  an
illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high  degree of mental cruelty,  the  Explanation  to  Section  498A  which  includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted.-the  involvement  of  the  other  accused persons, that is, appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, we find that  there  is  no allegation of any kind of physical torture.   The  evidence  brought  on record against them with regard to cruelty is absolutely sketchy and not convincing. - It has been alleged that the mother-in-law used to rob  her money which she earned as wages.  The said  fact  has  really  not  been established.  As far as appellant no. 4, Jesuben, is concerned, there is
only one singular allegation that at one public place, i.e. in a 'mela', she had threatened the deceased  that  she  would  be  divorced  by  her husband.  On the basis of the said evidence, it is difficult to  sustain the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.   Once  we  are  holding that the accused-appellants are not guilty of the offence under  Section 306 and 498A IPC, the conviction under  Section  201  IPC  is  also  not sustainable. -2015 SC MSKLAWREPORTS

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