Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Babita Devi / Babli - Main Points and Insights:
Multiple references to individuals named Babli/Babli Devi indicate they are involved in various legal cases, often as complainants, accused, or witnesses. For example, Babli and Sonu on the allegations that accused-Dharambir had administered... ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"], and Binita Devi @ Vinita Kumari @ Babli Devi involved in criminal proceedings ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Several cases involve Babli in criminal proceedings, including allegations of assault, harassment, and involvement in criminal acts. For instance, PW-7, Babli has also narrated the correct facts before the Court regarding a case of injury and assault ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"], and accused Mashkari s/o Babli in an investigation ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Babli is also involved in family disputes and property-related cases, such as allegations of harassment due to division of property and disputes over children ["SUMITRA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"], and issues related to living arrangements with her children ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
In some cases, Babli is the victim or complainant, such as in a motor accident claim where she was declared a deceased victim (Babita @ Babli in compensation case) ["Manphool VS Anil - Punjab and Haryana"], and in cases where she has been injured or attacked, e.g., PW-11 Babli Devi, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner involved in a criminal case ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Several judgments show Babli's involvement in criminal proceedings leading to acquittals or convictions, e.g., The judgment of conviction of Mamraj, Mahesh, Jeelu and Prem Raj @ Babli was upheld ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"], and cases where Babli was accused of assault or conspiracy ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Babli Devi / Babli appears prominently in various legal contexts—criminal, civil, and family law—indicating her active involvement in disputes, allegations, and court proceedings.
The cases reflect a mix of victimization, accusations, and involvement in criminal activities, with some cases resulting in acquittals and others in convictions. For example, accused Om Parkash, Devi, Dharamvir, Santosh and Meera were acquitted ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"], whereas the judgment of conviction of Mamraj, Mahesh, Jeelu and Prem Raj @ Babli was upheld ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
The recurring mention of Babli in family disputes, property issues, and criminal allegations underscores her complex legal profile, often involving accusations of harassment, assault, or conspiracy, and sometimes as a complainant or victim.
References:- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["SUMITRA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["VARSHA vs DEEPAK AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]
In the realm of Indian criminal law, particularly in high-profile or family dispute cases, queries like 'Babita Devi vs Babli 1993 CRR' often arise from individuals seeking clarity on specific judgments. Criminal Revisions (CRR) filed in High Courts, such as Punjab and Haryana, typically challenge lower court decisions in criminal matters. But what happens when no such case surfaces? This post dives deep into the search results, related dowry death prosecutions, and evidentiary nuances under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
If you're researching 'Babita Devi VS Babli 1993 CRR,' you're likely probing a potential adversarial dispute from 1993. However, extensive review of legal documents yields no matching case. Instead, names like Babita Devi and Babli (or Babli Devi) appear frequently in unrelated dowry death trials as victims, witnesses, or parties—but never as direct opponents in a 1993 CRR. Let's break this down systematically.
Legal databases, including Punjab and Haryana High Court records, do not contain a case titled Babita Devi vs Babli under CRR from 1993. Common themes emerge in the documents:
This absence suggests the queried case may not exist in accessible public records or could be misremembered. Broader database searches or original court files might be needed.
While no direct hit, several cases highlight evidentiary challenges in dowry deaths—crucial for understanding Section 304B IPC (dowry death) and Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband/relatives). These require proof of unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty 'soon before' death. Courts invoke presumptions under Section 113B of the Evidence Act only with solid links. State of Rajasthan VS Girdhari Lal - 2013 7 Supreme 198
Babita Devi Poisoning Case: Trial court convicted under 304B/498A for death by poison after beating. However, the High Court upheld 498A for cruelty but doubted 304B due to weak medical evidence: the judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the Sessions Court insofar as it recorded a finding that Babita Devi died an unnatural death is based on no evidence. Post-mortem doctor unexamined, no viscera report, no injuries noted. Chhotan Sao VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 770
Babli Burn Injuries: Death 3.5 years post-marriage. High Court acquitted under 498A/304B, but Supreme Court reversed on appeal, reinstating conviction. State of Haryana VS Angoori Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1199
Babita Burns/Suicide: Within 5-7 years of 1992-93 marriage. Court upheld abetment under Section 306 IPC for cruelty but rejected 304B: there is no evidence on record to come to the definite conclusion that soon before her death, Babita was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband... for, or in connection with any, demand of dowry. No presumption under Section 113B. 'Soon before' is case-specific, not rigidly timed. State of Rajasthan VS Girdhari Lal - 2013 7 Supreme 198
These illustrate courts' scrutiny: unnatural death must be proven beyond doubt, with proximate dowry-cruelty nexus.
Punjab and Haryana High Court documents reveal CRRs involving 'Babli' or 'Babita' in diverse contexts, none matching 1993:
Other snippets touch family settlements, elections, and concurrent sentences, but reinforce no 1993 Babita vs Babli link. For instance, in property partitions, family settlements need full implementation; partial suits may fail. Chattar Singh VS Randhir Singh - 2017 Supreme(P&H) 1564
Courts emphasize:- Unnatural Death Proof: Essential; gaps like missing viscera doom 304B. Chhotan Sao VS State of Bihar - 2013 8 Supreme 770- 'Soon Before' Flexibility: The period which can come within the term 'soon before' cannot be put within the four corners of time frame. It is left to the Court... depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.State of Rajasthan VS Girdhari Lal - 2013 7 Supreme 198- Presumptions Not Automatic: Specific dowry demands required. State of Haryana VS Angoori Devi - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1199
In bail or revision pleas, delays, vague allegations weaken prosecution. BABLI DEVI vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
Disclaimer: This is general information based on public records, not specific legal advice. Laws vary; consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
For dowry victims or accused, understanding these precedents can guide strategy. Stay informed—justice hinges on facts.
#DowryDeath #IPC304B #CriminalRevision
, Dharambir, Ramesh, Babli and Sonu on the allegations that accused-Dharambir had administered As per the facts of the case, the FIR in question was lodged by the petitioner against the accused, namely, Deepak, Babita ... CRR-370-2021 (O&M) recording of the evidence when the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix as SHARMILA DEVI ... SHARMILA DEVI span style="font-family:Verdana,serif
Puran alias Babli made CRR No. 1973 of 2010 and other ... Rukmani Devi and sister-inlaw, Suman had castigated that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law marriage party was not served well; that mother-in-law – Rukmani Devi ... Puran alias Babli made her to sit in Maruti Car No.
Puran alias Babli made CRR No. 1973 of 2010 and other ... Rukmani Devi and sister-inlaw, Suman had castigated that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law marriage party was not served well; that mother-in-law – Rukmani Devi ... Puran alias Babli made her to sit in Maruti Car No.
Binita Devi @ Vinita Kumari @ Babli Devi 4. ... Babita Devi 3. ... Devi, Binita Devi @ Vinita Kumari @ Babli Devi and Nitin Chandra Gupta @ Nitu Chandra Anticipatory bail application filed by Praveen Chandra Gupta, Mukesh Barnwal @ Mukesh Modi, Babita ... Laxmi Devi span style="font-family:AlbanyAMT,serif
Devi @ Babli wife of Shri Aditya Chaurasiya, resident of village Bauri Para, PS-Sadar, Dhanbad, PO & District- Devi @ Babli which has caused grave prejudice to the complainant -victim showing her grievance against the Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2013 Babita
A perusal of the record would reveal that complainant Babli- PW-3 has not levelled any specific allegations or attributed any injury to Dharamvir, Devi, Santosh and Meera. ... CRR-1802-2019 Date of Decision:-19.04.2023 Babli. ......Petitioner. Vs. Om Parkash & Ors. ... Against the aforementioned judgment the convicted accused filed a Criminal Appeal No.127 of 2018 whereas the complainant Babli preferred a Criminal Appeal No.115 of 2018. ... Thereafter, the accused namely Meera wife ....
CRR 2864 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2016 Babli Devi and another For orders, see CRR 2127 of 2016. ... CRR 2864 of 2016 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Case No. 24-CRR of 11.2.2009 Sunil Devi @ Babli vs Sunil Devi @ Babli Sunil Devi @ Babli vs State of Haryana and others FAO No. 294-M of 2005 Sunil Devi @ Babli vs Sunil One FAO titled as Sunil Kumar vs Sunil Devi @ Bablispan style="font-family
Babli wife Jitendra and Smt. Babli's son Siddhant Tomar and daughter Jaya Tomar and her sister-in-law Smt. Babita and inquired in relation to the case in question. ... Babli is also upset with the two children staying with Mrs. Sumitra and she thinks that Mrs. Sumitra Devi has turned my children against me and she is spreading false propaganda against me in the society. Regarding this matter. There is a dispute between Mrs. Sumitra and Mrs. ... Sumitra Devi has also been told that she can also obtain re....
Brief facts of the case are that complainant-Babli Devi- further stated that complainant-Babli Devi, while appearing before the Court Date of decision: April 09, 2019 Babli ... Devi ....Petitioner has stated that one week before the incident, i.e. 24.5.2015 Sudesh along p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding
Jasjit Singh and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 507 and Basanti Devi vs. The learned counsel relies upon paragraph 24 of the decision in Basanti Devi supra stating that the enunciation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this paragraph is a reiteration of the earlier decision in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra). The learned counsel relies upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs.
Vide this common order, CRR No.4333 of 2017 titled Reshma Devi and another Vs. State Haryana, CRR No.4439 of 2017 titled Rajbir and another Vs. State of Haryana, CRR No.4440 of 2017 titled Reshma Devi and another Vs. State Haryana and CRR No.4388 of 2017 titled Rajbir and another Vs. State of Haryana are being decided. CRR No.4333 of 2017 (O&M), CRR No.4439 of 2017 (O&M), CRR No.4440 of 2017 (O&M) & CRR No.4388 of 2017 (O&M):
As no evidence was adduced by the election-petitioner, the High Court rightly dismissed the election petition." Babita vs. Nihaldel & Ors , (2017) 4 RajLW 2966 (Raj.) From the discussions made above, Article 243-0 restricts the interference of Court in electoral matters of Panchayati Raj Institutions and provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such "Authority" and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the legislature of a State.
In support of his arguments, Mr. Sarin has also relied upon the following judgments:- (ii) Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil and others AIR 1966 SC 292. On the issue of there being no better evidence than the admission of a party on a disputed question of fact. (i) Babita v. Bala Devi & Ors. 2016(2) CCC 336 (P&H).
(i) Banwari Lal Vs. Smt. Chando Devi (Through L.R.) and Anr. 1993 BCI 139 (SC) 8. The learned Counsel has relied upon the following judgments—
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
