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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 29

P.N.PRAKASH
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R. Karthikeyan, for Petitioner
V. Arul, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), for Respondent

ORDER

“To be or not to be; that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, An by opposing end them.”

Shakespeare, Hamlet.

1. The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No. 245 of 2008 for an offence under Section 306 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution as evidenced by the final report is that the petitioner was married to the deceased Juliegandhi five years prior to 22.8.2007, which is the date of the occurrence. There was marital discord between the petitioner and his wife. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 22.8.2007, at about 8 O’ Clock, the child of the couple had taken sour food from the earthen pot and on account of which, the petitioner is supposed to have scolded his wife. Aggrieved over which, his wife committed suicide by taking pesticide. She died subsequently at 11 a.m., on that day. There is no dying declaration in this case. The Revenue Divisional Officer’s report discloses that the death was not due to demand of dowry warranting a prosecution under Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution was rest content with filing a final report for an offence under Se










































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