S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR
Paranagouda – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.2847 of 2012 by affirming the judgment and order of sentence convicting the appellants passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in S.C. No.35 of 2011 dated 14.09.2012 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short the ‘DP Act’) has been called in question.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The third daughter of the complainant (Shri Chandappa Gooli) named Akkamahadevi was married to second respondent/accused No.1 herein on 16.05.2010. A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Chandappa Gooli, father of the deceased on 20.12.2010 alleging thereunder that a dowry of Rs. 31,000 and 1.5 tolas of gold was given at the time of marriage and additional dowry of Rs. 50,000 and gold was demanded after two months of marriage. It was alleged that accused No.1 and his parents (appellants) gave physical and mental torture to his daughter and unable to bear the same she committed suicide by self-immolating namely by pouring kerosene and lighting fire. A dying declaration
Atbir vs. Government (2010) 9 SCC 1 – Referred [Para 11]
Bansilal vs. State of Haryana (2011) 11 SCC 359 – Relied [Para 15]
Dalbir Singh vs State of U.P. (2004) 5 SCC 334 – Relied [Para 22]
Dinesh Seth v State of NCT of Delhi (2008) 14 SCC 94 – Relied [Para 19]
K. Prema S. Rao & anr v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others (2003) 1 SCC 217 – Relied [Para 29]
Kamlavva And Anr Vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 13 SCC 614 – Relied [Para 12]
Salim Gulab Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 6 SCC 606 – Referred [Para 11]
Sher Singh Alias Partapa vs State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCR 29 – Relied [Para 16]
State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326] – Referred [Para 16]
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" in the descriptions. Therefore, no case is definitively identified as bad law from the information available.
Followed / Validated Treatment:
Shyamapada Saha VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 558: The case references are in the context of established legal principles and citations from the Supreme Court (e.g., SCC 152, SCC (Cri) 19), suggesting these are considered authoritative and accepted rulings.
Dalbir Singh VS State Of U. P. - 2004 3 Supreme 506: The case discusses a legal principle regarding conviction under different IPC sections, which appears to be a settled point of law.
Salim Gulab Pathan VS State of Maharashtra Through SHO - 2012 3 Supreme 616: Principles for appreciating dying declarations are reiterated, indicating reinforcement rather than questioning or criticizing.
Kamalavva VS State of Karnataka - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1334: The case clarifies procedural aspects related to FIR registration and mental fitness, suggesting acceptance of these legal principles.
K. Prema S. Rao VS Yadla Srinivasa Rao - 2002 7 Supreme 405: The case states that similar facts can support convictions under different charges, aligning with accepted legal reasoning.
SHER SINGH @ PARTAPA VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2015 6 Supreme 92: The detailed discussion on the interpretation of statutory words and the conditions for proving dowry death suggests an authoritative interpretation, not a challenged or overruled one.
Bansi Lal VS State of Haryana - 2011 1 Supreme 347: The principles regarding continuous cruelty and the rebuttal of presumptions are presented as established law.
Nur Salim Mallick VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1307: This case appears to be a duplicate or a reference to the first case (Shyamapada Saha VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 558), but without further context, its treatment status is unclear.
The references to cases with ellipses ("...") and incomplete citations (e.g., Paranagouda v. ... State of Karnataka) make it difficult to determine their treatment or whether they have been overruled or criticized.
The mention of Ashok Kumar v. ... State of M.P. lacks detail, and without additional context, its judicial treatment cannot be ascertained.
The case summaries do not contain explicit language indicating judicial criticism, overruling, or negative treatment, so their treatment remains uncertain based on this data alone.
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.