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

1981 Supreme(Bom) 138

DHARMADHIKARI
Minoti – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Mohansingh Malik – Respondent


Advocates:
M.D. Pathak, for Appellant; M.P. Patel, for Respondents.

JUDGEMENT :- The plaintiff who is a minor filed the suit through her next friend, maternal grand-mother for a declaration that the money lying in the special Savings Bank Account No.14/1168 with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Juhu Branch, Bombay exclusively belongs to her deceased mother a her self-acquired and self-earned separate property and in view of the provisions of S.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 daughter alone is entitled to get the said amount.

2. It appears to be an admitted position that defendant No.1 Sushilkumar was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code in Sessions Case No.196 of 1980 decided on 29th of Oct., 1980. After appreciating all the evidence on record the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that accused Sushilkumar used a sharp-edged weapon for inflicting various injuries on deceased Revati. While inflicting the injuries he chose vital part of the body and used considerable force. The Sessions Court further found that in view of the number of injuries and their location considered together with other factors clearly indicate that accused Sushilkumar did the act with intention of causing the death of Revati. After reco
























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