Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.-I.
2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C, the appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 06.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Gonda in Session Trial No. 217 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 127 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B (alternative Section 302/34 IPC) and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kaudiya, District Gonda.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged against four persons - the appellant Manoj Kumar, his father Faujdar, mother Maya Devi and brother Pawan Kumar, stating that the informant had got his daughter married to the appellant Manoj Kumar about six years ago. Gauna ceremony was performed three years after the marriage. About one year after the Gauna, the accused persons started demanding Rs. 30,000/- as additional dowry. The informant had paid Rs. 10,000 and had committed to pay the balance amount soon. The appellant had taken the informant’s daughter with him about 8 days ago and had stated that unless th
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
The court established that in dowry death cases, the prosecution must prove a proximate link between dowry demands and the victim's death, shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
Point of Law : When statute imposes imprisonment and fine, same shall be read in 'conjunctive' and not 'disjunctive'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be evidence of instigation or intentional aid by the accused to drive ....
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases; circumstantial evidence requires a clear connection to the accused, not mere suspicion.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
