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

2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12930

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J
JAYACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


O R D E R

Petitioners are the husband and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant, who was examined as PW1 before the court below. PW2 and PW3 are the father and brother of PW1. Petitioners were convicted by the courts below for offence punishable under Sec.498A r/w 34 IPC. The appellate court modified the sentence to R.I. for one year to the first petitioner and R.I. for six months to the 2nd petitioner. Besides, a sum of Rs.5,000/- each was ordered as fine which if paid was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. That part of the sentence was confirmed by the appellate court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued with vehemence that there is no legal evidence to hold that the petitioners have committed the offence under Sec.498A IPC. It is also contended that though letters were stated to have been sent by PW1 to her father, those letters were not produced. Similarly, though PW1 contended that when she sustained injury as she was beaten by her husband, she was taken to the hospital by the wife of the landlord of the building occupied by she and her husband, that lady was also not examined. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top