K.LAKSHMAN
M. Sudarshan Goud – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the judgment, dated 14.10.2008, passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.253 of 2008, the appellants - Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellants - accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each.
3. It is relevant to note that originally Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad charged accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’). Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and Section 3 of the Act, 1961. The trial Court also acquitted accused Nos.3 and 5 for the charge under Section 4 of the Act, 1961.
4. According to the
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar
M. Narayan v. State of Karnataka
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P.
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.
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.