SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 467

V.S.SIRPURKAR, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Puran Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment :-

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. The judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code is in challenge in this appeal. Originally, there were three accused persons, namely, Gurdial (accused No.1), Puran Chand (accused No.2), the present appellant and Rajo Devi (accused No.3). However, accused No.3, Rajo Devi was acquitted by the High Court and accused No.1, Gurdial has not chosen to file an appeal. It is only Puran Chand (accused No.2) who is in appeal before us.

2. Gurdial got married to one Santosh on 08.12.1997. According to the prosecution, she was harassed for dowry just after one week of the marriage and was set to fire on the fateful day i.e. on 15.12.1997 by as many as three accused persons, they being, Gurdial, her husband, Puran Chand, her elder brother-in-law and Rajo Devi, the paternal aunt of accused No.1, Gurdial. The incident took place at about 4 a.m. in the morning. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 and accused No.2 sprinkled Kerosene Oil and in this conspiracy even Rajo Devi (accused No.3) was a party. All this was done on account of the less dowry received in the m



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top