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

AMARESHWAR SAHAY
Madhusudan Rai alias Madhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Afaque Eqbal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Malti Chaurasia, A.P.P.

JUDGMENT

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-6-2000, in sessions Trial No. 601 of 2000, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant for committing the offences under Sections 498A and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years under Section 498A and R.I. for a period of 7 years under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2.The prosecution story, in short, is that the informant, namely, Shailesh Kumar Roy (P.W.6), the brother of the deceased Sandhya Roy lodged F.I.R. on 18-5-1996, alleging therein, that his sister, Sandhya Roy (deceased) was legally married to the appellant, Madhusudan Roy @ Madhu on 18-5-1996 and thereafter his sister started living in the house of the appellant, Madhusudan Roy @ Madhu. The appellant started demanding Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand) from the informant and when he showed his inability, the appellant left his sister in his house. Then his sister did file case for maintenance against her husband, but the same was compromised, as the appellant gave assurance that he would keep his wife nicely

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