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

1994 Supreme(Guj) 299

J.N.BHATT, S.K.BHATT
UMEDSING SURSING MAHIDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.P.RAVAL, R.N.ACHARYA

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) UNFORTUNATELY, again we are dealing with a bride burning case in this appeal filed by the appellant-original accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 374 Criminal procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE appellant was charged for having committed murder of his wife Bai kesar who was 18 years old. The accused was thus charged under Sec. 302 of indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 211 of 1986. On appreciation of the facts and the circumstances and evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal code and is ordered to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The impugned judgment and sentence came to be passed on 31-8-1987. The accused being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has come up, before us, in this appeal.

( 3 ) BEFORE we examine the merits of this appeal and the challenge against it, we would like to highlight the salient features of the prosecution story which have come forth in this appeal.

( 4 ) THE unfortunate incident in question burning of bride occurred on an auspicious day - Janmashta































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