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

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1192

ANOOP V.MOHTA, S.S.PARKAR
Suvamasingh Tiratsingh Dhanjal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Judgment

V. MOHTA ANOOP, J.

( 1 ) ALL these Appeals are arising out of a judgment and order dated 7th March, 1996, passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, alibag, whereby, appellant No. 1 (accused No. 1) in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1996 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "ipc") and acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 506 of the IPC. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 i. e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Appeal No. 462 of 1996 filed by the State of maharashtra under Section 378 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "cri. P. C. "), were acquitted. The State of Maharashtra has also preferred an Appeal under Section 377 (1) of the Cri. P. C. for enhancement of the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge against accused No. 1. All these Appeals have been heard together. Therefore, are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) AS per the prosecution the death of the deceased Manjeet Kaur occurred on 18-9-1992 at the house of the accused due to 100% burn injuries. Accused no. 1 is the husband of the deceased. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and the mother of accused No. 1 respectively and acc

































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