Madhvanand vs State of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 96

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Madhvanand – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwa, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2002, under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Act), by the court of Sessions Judge, Nainital. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Devki Devi and Bhagirathi Devi have been convicted under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and have been sentenced as hereunder:-

(i)	Section 304B IPC	imprisonment for a period of seven years.
(ii)	Section 201 IPC	imprisonment for a period of two years.
(iii)	Section ¾ of the Act	imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants Madhvanand and Bachi Ram have been convicted under Sections 304B, 201 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act and have been sentenced as hereunder:-

(i)	Section 304B IPC	rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years.
(ii)	Section 201 IPC	rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
(iii)	Section ¾ of the Act	imprisonment for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(UK) 96

RAVINDRA MAITHANIMadhvanand – AppellantVersusState of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Madhvanand – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent