Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, ALOK MAHRA
Sunil Singh Panwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2014, State of Uttarakhand v. Sunil Singh Panwar, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows. The deceased Sunita Devi was married to one Balbir Singh Chauhan in the year 2005. They were blessed with a baby boy. But, after two and a half years of marriage, Balbir Singh Chauhan died. The deceased was working in an Ashram after the death of her husband. In the year 2010, she was transferred to Bhatwari Branch of the Ashram, where she was staying in a rented accommodation, The family members of the deceased Sunita had persuaded her to remarry after the death of her first husband, but, she was reluctant to it. Finally, on 03.06.2013, the deceased Sunita married to the appellant without informing her family members. At that time, her son was 7-8 years of age. For
Where there is perfunctory examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., matter is capable of being remitted to trial court from the stage at which prosecution was closed.
Procedure for recording the statement of the accused person so as to allow him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, if any, appearing in the evidence brought on record by the pr....
The mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC aims to afford the accused an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against them, and failure to comply with this p....
The court determined that inadequate compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. during trial prejudiced the accused, necessitating a remand for reconsideration under proper procedural safeguards.
Inadequate confrontation of the accused with incriminating evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial, necessitating case remittance for proper re-evaluat....
(1) Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to accused from consideration while dealing with case of particular accused.(2) Examination of accused – Court is empowered to take hel....
Point of Law : Duty of the trial court to put the substance of all the incriminating circumstances to the accused by framing specific and separate question on each incriminating evidence brought on r....
The court established that specific evidence of continuous cruelty or harassment is essential to substantiate charges of dowry death and cruelty under IPC Sections 498A and 304B.
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
