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

2018 Supreme(Bom) 104

A.M.BADAR
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Dattatraya Tukaram Kadam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prashant Jadhav, APP.
For the Respondent:Sandeep Waghmare, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, the appellant/State is challenging the judgment and order dated 30th March 2002 passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.127 of 2000, thereby convicting the respondent/accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts in nutshell leading to the prosecution of the respondent/accused are thus:

(a) PW2 Saraswati Aangre is the First Informant in the instant case. She is a resident of Pune. Her daughter Sujata married respondent/accused on 28th April 1999. Thereafter, she started cohabiting with the respondent/accused at Wai in Satara district. They were residing in the tenanted premises owned by PW4 Jaywant Mandhare. The respondent/accused was serving in the Life Insurance Company.

(b) It is case of the prosecution that the respondent/accused was suspecting the character of Sujata and torturing her mentally by stating that she has some affair at Pune and she looks at strangers. According to prosecution case, on two occasions, Sujata was aborted against her wish. Thus, according to the prosecution case, the respondent/accused used to subject his wife Sujata to cruelty by s




















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