S.K.PALO
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed assailing the judgment dated 28-5-1999 passed by 8th ASJ, Bhopal in S.T. No. 69/99 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for 7 years rigorous imprisonment each. The appellant No. 2/Gopilal is dead, therefore, the appeal is being dealt with regard to appellant No. 2.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of appellant No. 1 was performed with Maya on 14-4-1998. Appellant No. 2 was the father of appellant No. 1/Suresh and appellant No. 3 is the sister-in-law (wife of elder brother) of appellant No. 1. At the time of marriage, the appellant No. 1 demanded a motorcycle and a colour T.V. as dowry. The family members of deceased/Maya assured to give the same within a year. After her marriage, Maya had come to her maternal house three to four times. Always she used to inform her members of family, that his father-in-law/Gopilal, husband/Suresh and sister-in-law/Shyamwati are constantly demanding motorcycle. She also narrated that her husband/Suresh has been treating her with cruelty. Suresh has been instigated by the ot
Bharat Bhushan and another vs. State of M.P.
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat
Durga Prasad and another vs. State of M.P.
Narayan Chetan vs. State of Maharashtra
Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.