RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, B.U.DEBADWAR
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Peth Beed Through Ismile Syed Maheboob – Appellant
Versus
Majid – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.U. Debadwar, J.
1. This appeal has been directed under Section 378 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment and order dated 13-12-2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.125 of 1997 whereby it has acquitted the respondents/original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201, 203, 177 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) .
2. Facts giving rise to the appeal, in nutshell, are as under:-
a) Unfortunate young lady by name Shabana was the daughter of Syed Ismile Syed Mehboob, resident of village Talwada, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed. She was given in marriage to respondent no.1 Majid Pathan. Their marriage was performed in or about February – 1996. Respondent no.2 - Halimabee Pathan is the mother of respondent no.1 - Majid Pathan and mother-in-law of Shabana. After marriage, Shabana started residing and cohabiting with husband and in-laws at their house situated at Islampura locality of Beed. Matrimonial life of
S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna Vs. State of Karnataka
Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Dinesh Seth Vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Rahul Mishra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Bachni Devi and Another Vs. State of Haryana
Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388
Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721
Rameshwar Dass Vs. State of Punjab and Anr
S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna Vs. State of Karnataka
Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.