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

2023 Supreme(MP) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Kumar (Verma), J.
Manendra Singh & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1786 of 2014 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 30.6.2014 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 169/2010;
Decided on 17.3.2023

Advocates:
Manish Datt with Siddharth K. Sharma for appellants; Aditya Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State; Shivam Singh for Objector.

Headnote:

(1) Criminal Jurisprudence -- until and unless prosecution places cogent and convincing evidence in such manner that all essential ingredients of alleged offence/section are made out, accused cannot be liable for same. [Para 12

(2) Witness -- hostile witness -- witness not declared hostile by prosecution -- evidence of such witness binding on prosecution. (2005) SCC (Cri.) 1050 followed. [Para 23

(3) Identification -- neither appellant No. 1 nor discharged co-accused earlier known to witness -- it was incumbent upon investigating agency to hold TIP. [Para 28

(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 306 -- allegation that appellant No. 1 had illicit relation with discharged accused and they were staying in hotel rooms not proved -- contradictions, omissions and improvements in testimonies ignored -- trial Court proceeded on its own assumption and presumption rather than evidence on record -- it cannot be said that on account of illicit relation between appellant No. 1 and discharged co-accused, deceased ended her own life -- findings of trial Court not only perverse but deviated from well settled law to marshal evidence of prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis other witnesses and defence witnesses -- said finding cannot stand in eye of law -- even presumption of so-called illicit relationship is not ground to convict appellants u/s 306. (2013) 10 SCC 48, (2015) 11 SCC 753 and (2017) 11 SCC 176 followed. [Paras 33 & 34

(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 304B, 306, 498A and 120B -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113B -- trial Court has taken into account only examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses -- totally ignored contradictions, omissions and improvements in their cross-examination -- external injury not found on person of deceased -- finding of trial Court that deceased was beaten soon before her death is perverse -- prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt -- presumption u/s. 113B of Evidence Act not relevant because initial burden of proving not discharged by prosecution therefore onus never shifted upon defence -- no evidence on record to show that demand of dowry was made by appellants and they were harassing by their cruel behaviour -- merely giving certain articles in marriage as customary rituals cannot be equated with demand of dowry -- nowhere in her telephonic conversation has deceased stated just before suicide that she is being harassed for or in connection with dowry -- appellants could not have been convicted even u/s. 306 of IPC -- nothing on record to show that they instigated deceased to commit suicide -- no specific evidence led relating to conspiracy hatched by appellants -- prosecution failed to establish any charge beyond reasonable doubt -- appellants acquitted. AIR 2015 SC 2081, (2017) 1 SCC 101, (2013) 4 SCC 131 and (2003) 8 SCC 80 followed. (1998) SCC (Cri) 604, 1990 CrLJ 407, (1995) 6 SCC 219, (2008) 1 SCC 202, (2014) 12 SCC 448, (2013) 7 SCC 219, (2011) 12 SCC 408, (2011) 11 SCC 517, (2017) 6 SCC 792, (2006) 1 SCC 463, (2007) 12 SCC 443, (2010) 9 SCC 64, (2017) 4 SCC 642, (2013) 16 SCC 421, (2015) 3 SCC 724 and (2020) 18 SCC 423 referred to. [Para 35 to 40, 64, 67, 70 & 71

(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 113B -- presumption of dowry death -- is always rebuttable -- initial burden to prove case rests upon shoulders of prosecution -- prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt -- onus of proof will shift upon defence only thereafter. (2017) 1 SCC 101 followed. [Para 37

(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 65B -- admissibility of electronic evidence -- recording of telephonic conversation -- requisite certificate not obtained -- conversation as well as transcript of conversation cannot be taken into consideration -- however, required certification unnecessary if original document itself is produced -- this can be done by placing laptop computer, computer, tablet or mobile phone in Court. (2017) 8 SCC 518 and (2020) 7 SCC 1 followed. [Para 39

(8) Criminal Trial -- unproved prosecution document -- prosecution cannot utilise that document for proof of its story -- can be relied upon by accused if it supports defence in any manner. 1992 (1) MP Vidhi Bhasvar 290, 1997 (II) MPWN 214, 1993 (2) MPLJ 532, 1994 MPLJ 879, ILR (2012) MP 135 (DB) and 2014 (3) MPJR 146 relied on. [Para 41

(9) Criminal Trial -- defence evidence -- value -- due consideration should be given to defence witnesses -- defence is not obliged to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt -- if defence is probable, benefit will go to accused. [Para 45

(10) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 498A, 306, 304B and 120B -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- S. 3/4 -- scope of S. 498A -- to be covered under S. 498A, one has to be relative of husband by blood, marriage or adoption -- appellant No. 2 not relative of husband, nor he has any blood relation or relation by marriage -- no question of prosecution u/ss. 306, 304B, 498A and 120B of IPC and S. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (2009) 6 SCC 757 and (2010) 11 SCC 618 followed. [Para 55

(11) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 304B -- dowry death -- mere making of demand not the only prerequisite for proving offence u/s. 304B -- prosecution supposed to prove that demand was coupled with harassment or cruelty in connection with demand -- unnatural death can be called dowry death only if, after making demand of dowry, accused perpetuates cruelty on victim so that demand is got fulfilled -- if alleged demand of dowry is not coupled with cruelty, harassment or any other such act, S. 304B would not be made out. [Para 60

(12) Procedure -- procedural law is only to aid in justice, not an obstruction for administration of justice. (1998) 4 SCC 343 and (2003) 3 SCC 272 followed. [Para 62

(13) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 306 -- abetment of suicide -- to convict person for abetment of suicide, apart from proving suicide, it has to be proved that accused was instrumental in commission of suicide. [Para 64

(14) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 304B -- dowry death -- every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be due to dowry demand -- tendency of Court should not be that since young bride has died after marriage, somebody must be held culprit. [Para 65

(15) Court -- duty -- despite having sufficient power to ask questions to witnesses and to find out truth, most judges do not ask questions -- witnesses are left to advocates -- judges just sit and watch -- this tendency of being only umpires works heavily against poor who are normally not defended by advocates of competence -- trial Courts must shed their inertia -- must intervene where intervention is necessary for ends of justice. [Para 67

(16) Criminal Trial -- accused can be convicted and punished only when, by leading cogent evidence, prosecution proves its case to hilt -- evidence must be of sterling quality -- should be such that conclusion can be drawn that accused, and accused alone, ‘must’ have committed offence -- not that accused perhaps/might have committed offence -- order of conviction can be based only on legal evidence -- not on hypothetical propositions or unwarranted inference -- moral conviction regarding guilt of individual has no place in criminal jurisprudence. [Paras 68 & 69

¼1½ nkafMd fof/k 'kkL= && tc rd vfHk;kstui{k ,slh jhfr esa rdZiw.kZ vkSj izrhfrtud lk{; izLrqr ugha djrk fd vfHkdfFkr vijk/k@/kkjk ds leLr vfuok;Z la?kVd lkfcr gks tk,¡] vfHk;qDr mlds fy, nk;h ugha gks ldrkA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ lk{kh && i{knzksgh lk{kh && lk{kh vfHk;kstui{k }kjk i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr ugha && ,sls lk{kh dk lk{; vfHk;kstui{k ij vkc)djA ¼2005½ ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½1050 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23
¼3½ 'kuk[r && lk{kh u rks vihykFkhZ Ø-1 dks vkSj u mUeksfpr lg&vfHkqDr dks igys ls igpkurk Fkk && vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k ds fy, ijh{k.k 'kuk[r ijsM djkuk vfuok;Z FkkA ¼iSjk 28
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 306 && ;g vfHkdFku lkfcr ugha fd vihykFkhZ Ø-1 ds mUeksfpr vfHk;qDr ls v;qDr laca/k Fks rFkk og gksVsy ds dejksa esa jg jgs Fks && ifjlk{; esa fojks/kkHkklksa] yksiksa rFkk lq/kkjksa dks vuns[kk fd;k x;k && fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfHkys[kxr lk{; ds ctk; viuh/kkj.kk vkSj mi/kkj.kk ds vk/kkj ij pyk && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ Ø-1 vkSj mUeksfpr lg&vfHkqDr ds e/; v;qDr laca/k ds dkj.k e`rdk us viuh thou yhyk lekIr dj yh && fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr gh ugha vfirq vfHk;kstui{k ds lkf{k;ksa ds eqdkcys vU; lkf{k;ksa vkSj izfrj{kk lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; dh izkFkfedrk fu/kkZfjr djus dh lqfLFkj fof/k ls fopfyr Hkh && mDr fu"d"kZ fof/k dh n`f"V ls fLFkj ugha jg ldrk && rFkkdfFkr v;qDr laca/k dh mi/kkj.kk Hkh vihykFkhZx.k dks/kkjk 306 ds v/khu fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy, vk/kkj ughaA ¼2013½10 ,l lh lh 48] ¼2015½11 ,l lh lh 753 rFkk ¼2017½11 ,l lh lh 176 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 33 ,oa 34
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 304[k] 306 498d rFkk 120[k && lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 &&/kkjk 113[k && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vfHk;kstui{k ds lkf{k;ksa dh eq[; ijh{kk ij gh fopkj fd;k gS && mudh izfrijh{kk ds fojks/kkHkklksa] yksiksa rFkk lq/kkjksa dks iw.kZr% vuns[kk fd;k gS && e`rdk dh nsg ij cká {kfr ugha ikbZ xbZ && fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk ;g fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr fd e`rdk dks mldh e`R;q ls dqN igysa gh ihVk x;k Fkk && vfHk;kstui{k viuk i{kdFku leLr ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy && lk{; vf/kfu;e dh/kkjk 113[k ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk lqlaxr ugha D;ksafd vfHk;kstui{k }kjk lkfcr djus ds vkjafHkd Hkkj dk fuoZgu ugha fd;k x;k blfy, izfrj{kk i{k ij Hkkj dHkh varfjr gh ugha gqvk && ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dksbZ vfHkys[kxr lk{; ugha fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjk ngst dh ek¡x dh xbZ Fkh rFkk og vius Øwj O;ogkj ls rax dj jgs Fks && fookg esa :fढ+xr laLdkjksa ds :i esa dfri; oLrq,¡ nsus ek= dks ngst dh ek¡x ds leku ugha ekuk tk ldrk && e`rdk us vkRegR;k ds Bhd iwoZ nwjHkk"k ij vius okrkZyki esa dgha ugha dgk fd mls ngst ds fy, vFkok ngst ds laca/k esa rax fd;k tk jgk gS && vihykFkhZx.k dks naM lafgrk dh/kkjk 306 ds v/khu Hkh fl)nks"k ugha Bgjktk tk ldrk Fkk && vfHkys[k ij ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dqN ugha fd mUgksaus e`rdk dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, nq"izsfjr fd;k && vihykFkhZx.k }kjk "kM~;a= jps tkus ds ckjs esa dksbZ fofufnZ"V lk{; is'k ugha && vfHk;kstui{k dksbZ Hkh vkjksi ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy && vihykFkhZx.k }kjk "kM~;a= jps tkus ds ckjs esa dksbZ fofufnZ"V lk{; is'k ugha && vfHk;kstui{k dksbZ Hkh vkjksi ;qfDr;qDr langs ds ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy && vihykFkhZx.k nks"keqDrA , vkb vkj 2015 ,l lh 2071] ¼2017½1 ,l lh lh 101] ¼2013½4 ,l lh lh 131 rFkk ¼2003½8 ,l lh lh 80 vuqlfjrA ¼1998½ ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 604] 1990 lhvkj ,y ts 407] ¼1995½6 ,l lh lh 219] ¼2008½1 ,l lh lh 202] ¼2014½12 ,l lh lh 448] ¼2013½7 ,l lh lh 219] ¼2011½12 ,l lh lh 408] ¼2011½ 11 ,l lh lh 517] ¼2017½6 ,l lh lh 792] ¼2006½1 ,l lh lh 463] ¼2007½12 ,l lh lh 443] ¼2010½9 ,l lh lh 64] ¼2017½4 ,l lh lh 642] ¼2013½16 ,l lh lh 421 ¼2015½ 3 ,l lh lh 724 rFkk ¼2020½18 ,l lh lh 423 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 34 ls 40] 64] 67] 79 ,oa 71
¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 &&/kkjk 113[k && ngst e`R;q dh mi/kkj.kk && lnSo [kaMuh; gS && i{kdFku lkfcr djus dk vkjafHkd Hkkj vfHk;kstui{k ds daèkksa ij gksrk gS && vfHk;kstui{k viuk i{kdFku leLr ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs lkfcr djus dks ck/; gS && rRi'pkr~ gh lcwr dk Hkkj izfrj{kk i{k dks varfjr gksxkA ¼2017½1 ,l lh lh 101 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 37
¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 &&/kkjk 65[k && bySDVªkWfud lk{; dh xzkárk && nwjHkk"k ij gq, okrkZyki dh fjdkWfM±x && vko';d izek.ki= vfHkizkIr ugha &&okrkZyki dh vuqfyfi ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && rFkkfi] ewy nLrkost gh is'k dj fn;k tk, rks visf{kr izek.ku vuko';d && ;g ySiVkWi dEI;wVj] dEI;wVj] VScysV ;k eksckby Qksu U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djds fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2017½8 ,l lh lh 518 rFkk ¼2020½7 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 39
¼8½ nkafMd fopkj.k && vfHk;kstui{k dk vlkfcr nLrkost && vfHk;kstui{k viuh dgkuh ds lcwr ds fy, ml nLrkost dk mi;ksx ugha dj ldrk && mlls fdlh Hkh izdkj izfrj{kki{+k dk leFkZu gksrk gks rks vfHk;qDr }kjk voyac fy;k tk ldrk gSA 1992 ¼1½ e-iz- fof/k HkkLoj 290] 1997 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 214] 1993 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 532] 1994 ,e ih ,y ts 879] vkb ,y vkj ¼2012½ ,e ih 135 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2014¼3½ ,e ih ts vkj 146 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 41
¼9½ nkafMd fopkj.k && izfrj{kk lk{; && ewY; && izfrj{kk lkf{k;ksa ij lE;d~ fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, && izfrj{kki{k viuk i{kdFku leLr ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs lkfcr djus ds fy, ck/; ugha && izfrj{kk laHkkO; gS rks vfHk;qDr dks Qk;nk izkIr gksxkA ¼iSjk 45
¼10½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 498d] 306] 304[k rFkk 120[k && ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 &&/kkjk 3@4 &&/kkjk 498d ds v/khu vkus ds fy, O;fDr dks jDr laca/k] fookg vFkok nÙkd ds ek/;e ls ifr dk ukrsnkj gksuk vko';d && vihykFkhZ Ø-2 ifr dk ukrsnkj ugha] u gh mldk dksbZ jDr lacaèk vFkok oSokfgd laca/k && naM lafgrk dh/kkjk 306] 304[k] 498d vkSj 120[k rFkk ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e dh/kkjk 3@4 ds v/khu vfHk;kstu dk iz'u ughaA ¼2009½6 ,l lh lh 757 rFkk ¼2010½11 ,l lh lh 618 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 55
¼11½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 304[k && ngst e`R;q &&/kkjk 304[k ds vèkhu vijk/k lkfcr djus ds fy, ek= ek¡x djuk ,dek= iwokZis{kk ugha && vfHk;kstui{k dks lkfcr djuk pkfg, fd ek¡x ds lkFk rax fd;k tkrk Fkk vFkok ek¡x ds laca/k esa Øwjrk dh tkrh Fkh && vizkÑfrd e`R;q dks ngst e`R;q rc gh dgk tk ldrk gS tc] ngst dh ek¡x djus ds mijkar] vfHk;qDr ihfM+r ls Øwjrk djrk gS rkfd ek¡x iwjh dh tk, && ;fn ngst dh vfHkdfFkr ek¡x ds lkFk Øwjrk] rax djuk vFkok ,slk dksbZ vU; dk;Z ugha gS rks/kkjk 304[k fl) ugha gksxhA¼iSjk 60
¼12½ izfØ;k && izfØ;kRed fof/k U;k; esa lgk;rk ek= ds fy, gksrh gS] U;k; iz'kklu esa ck/kk ds fy, ughaA ¼1998½4 ,l lh lh 343 rFkk ¼2003½3 ,l lh lh 272 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 62
¼13½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 306 && vkRegR;k dk nq"izsj.k && O;fDr dks vkRegR;k ds nq"izsj.k ds fy, fl)nks"k Bgjkus ds fy,] vkRegR;k lkfcr djus ds vfrfjDr] lkfcr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd vkRegR;k esa vfHk;qDr dh vga Hkwfedk FkhA ¼iSjk 64
¼14½ naM lafgrk] 1860 &&/kkjk 304[k && ngst e`R;q && fookgksijkar izR;ad vkRegR;k ngst dh ek¡x ds dkj.k gksus ds mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrh && U;k;ky; dh izo`fÙk ;g ugha gksuk pkfg, fd fookgksijkar uo;kSouk o/kq dh e`R;q gqbZ gS blfy, fdlh &u &fdlh dks nks"kh Bgjkuk gksxkA¼iSjk 65
¼15½ U;k;ky; && drZO; && lkf{k;ksa ls iz'u iwNus rFkk lR; dk irk yxkus ds fy, i;kZIr 'kfDr gksus ds ckotwn vf/kdrj U;k;k/kh'k iz'u ugha iwNrs && lkf{k;ksa dks vf/koDrkvksa ij NksM+ fn;k tkrk gS && U;k;k/kh'k cl cSB dj ns[krs gSa && ek= vaik;j cus jgus dh ;g izo`fÙk xjhcksa ij cgqr Hkkjh iM+rh gS] tks lkekU;r% l{ke vf/koDrkvksa }kjk izfrjf{kr ugha gksrs && fopkj.k U;k;ky;ksa dks viuh tM+r R;kxuk gh gksxh && tgk¡ U;k; ds fgr ds fy, e/;{ksi vko';d gS ogk¡ e/;{ksi djuk gksxkA ¼iSjk 67
¼16½ nkafMd fopkj.k && vfHk;qDr dks rc gh nks"kfl) vkSj nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gS tc rdZiw.kZ lk{; is'k djds vfHk;kstui{k viuk i{kdFku iw.kZr% lkfcr dj ns && lk{; mRÑ"V xq.koÙkk dk gksuk vko';d && ,slk gksuk pkfg, fd fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd vfHk;qDr us] vkSj dsoy vfHk;qDr us gh] ^vo';* vijk/k fd;k gS && ;g ugha fd vfHk;qDr us laHkor%@'kk;d vijk/k fd;k gks && nks"kflf) dk vkns'k fof/kd lk{; ij gh vk/kkfjr gks ldrk gS && izkDdfYir izfriknukvksa vFkok vkSfpR;foghu vuqekuksa ij ugha && O;fDr dh nksf"krk ds ckjs esa uSfrd/kkj.kk dk nkafMd fof/k 'kkL= esa dksbZ LFkku ughaA ¼iSjk 68 ,oa 69

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 against the judgment dated 30.6.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa District Khandwa (M.P.) in ST No.169/2010 whereby, learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable as under :--

S.NO.

NAME OF

APPELLANT

CONVICTION

UNDER SECTION

SENTENCE

FINE

IMPRISONMENT

IN LIEU OF FINE

 

1.

MANENDRA

SINGH

306 OF IPC

 

304-B of IPC

 

498-A OF IPC

 

120-B OF IPC

 

3/4 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION

ACT

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 2 YEARS

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEAR

Rs.50,000/-

 

NA

 

Rs.10,000/-

 

Rs.50,000/-

 

Rs.10,000/-

1 YEAR RI

 

NIL

 

3 MONTHS RI

 

1 YEAR RI

 

1 MONTH RI

 

2.

 

HARI SINGH

306 OF IPC

 

304 - B

 

498 – A

 

120-B

 

3/4 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION

ACT

RI FOR 7 YEARS

RI FOR 7 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEARS

RI FOR 7 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEAR

Rs.50,000/-

 

NIL

 

Rs.10,000/-

 

Rs.50,000/-

 

Rs.10,000/-

6 MONTHS RI

 

NIL

 

1 MONTH RI

 

6 MONTHS RI

 

1 MONTH RI

 

3

MOHAN

SINGH

306 OF IPC

 

304 - B of IPC

 

498-A OF IPC

 

120-B OF IPC

 

3/4 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION

ACT

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 2 YEARS

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEAR

Rs.50,000/-

 

NA

 

Rs.10,000/-

 

Rs.50,000/-

 

Rs.10,000/-

1 YEAR RI

 

NIL

 

3 MPNTHS RI

 

1 YEAR RI

 

1 MONTH RI

 

4

JAGENDRA

SINGH

306 OF IPC

 

304-B of IPC

 

498-A OF IPC

 

120-B OF IPC

 

3/4 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION

ACT

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 2 YEARS

RI FOR 10 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEAR

Rs.50,000/-

 

NA

 

Rs.10,000/-

 

Rs.50,000/-

 

Rs.10,000/-

1 YEAR RI

 

NIL

 

3 MONTHS RI

 

1 YEAR RI

 

1 MONTH RI

 

5.

SHRADDHA

SINGH

306 OF IPC

 

304 - B

 

498 – A

 

120-B

 

3/4 OF DOWRY

PROHIBITION

ACT

RI FOR 7 YEARS

RI FOR 7 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEARS

RI FOR 7 YEARS

RI FOR 1 YEARS

Rs.50,000/-

 

NIL

 

Rs.10,000/-

 

Rs.50,000/-

 

Rs.10,000/-

6 MONTHS RI

 

NIL

 

1 MONTH RI

 

6 MONTHS RI

 

1 MONTH RI

 

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on dated 5.5.2009, the engagement ceremony was organized of the appellant No.1 with the deceased Shweta Singh wherein amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was demanded from PW-1 and was given by him thereafter again an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Bolero Jeep was given on dated 16.6.2009 on the occasion of Tilak Ceremony, thereafter, marriage of the appellant No.1 was solemnized with the deceased at Bhopal on dated 22.6.2009. After solemnization of marriage deceased Shweta Singh went to Rewa with her in-laws wherein appellants No .2 to 5 is alleged to have taunted her for not bringing 50 tola gold jewellery and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, thereafter, it was alleged that illicit relation of the appellant No.1 was there with one Smriti Singh and after the harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of the appellants, it is so alleged that deceased committed suicide by han

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 Back to top