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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 89

H.N.NARAYAN
RATNAWA – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY BETAGERI POLICE – Respondent


Advocates:
C.S.Patil, CHANDRASHEKAR P.PATIL, M.MARI GOWDA

H. N. NARAYAN, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions are directed against the order dated 19-9-2000 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, discharging A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201, 202 read with 34 of the IPC and proceeding to frame charges against A-1, A-2 and a-4 for the said offences. While the State has filed Cri. R. P. No. 1077 of 2000 against the order of discharge of A-3, A-1, A-2 and A-4 have filed cri. R. P. No. 520 of 2001 for framing charges against them.

( 2 ) CERTAIN-UNDISPUTED facts are that A-1 is the mother-in-law of the deceased-Surekha while A-2 and A-3 are her sister-in-laws and A-4 is her husband. The father of the deceased is an Advocate at Huvina- hadagli and she was given in marriage to A-4 while A-3, Uma was married to the cousin of the victim. Since differences arose between the accused family and the uncle of the victim, A-3 came to reside with her mother and brother and it appears that trouble started to the victim thereafter. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 insisted the deceased to settle some property in the name of the husband of A-3 and to advice her father who was the joint family member consisting of himself and







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