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

1987 Supreme(Raj) 967

N.C.SHARMA
Dilbagh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. - Heard Mr. B.R. Arora for the petitioners, Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.L. Garg for the complainant.

2. Jeet Singh had lodged a First Information Report on December 5, 1985 that his daughter Balvender Kaur was married to Dilhagh Singh three years before the said date. It was mentioned that at about 8 or 9 p.m. of the nigat intervening 4th and 5th December, 1985, Pesticide spray was administered to Balvendra Kaur. Brother of Dilbaghsingh was sent to call Jeet Singh from his village. On reaching there, Jeet Singh came to know that Balvender Kaur has been administered pesticide spray and she had expired. After investigation the ' police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under section 306 and 498 A I.P.C. The post-mortem report mentions that the mode of the death was asphyxia due to suspected poisoning. The final opinion could be given after chemical examination and after the report of the vesceras was received.

3. In the First Information Report, Jeet Singh did not mention that harassment was made to Balvender Kaur with a view to meet the demand of additional dowry or that she had been treated with cruelty by either of the accu






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