Home > 498A Judgements > IPC 498A Judgements

IPC 498A Judgements

Courtesy http://www.advocatesc.com/2010/08/ipc-498a-judgments/

IPC 498a JUDGMENTS

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1386 of 1999)
Pawan Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 3/13/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 and 498a – conviction and sentence under — Evidence Act — Section 113(A) — dowry death — circumstances pointedly point out the accused as a guilty person as abettors — order of conviction cannot be interfered with — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2001)
Mohan Baitha and Ors. Appellants Vs. Mohan Baitha and Ors. Appellants, decided on 3/21/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal..
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 304B, 498a, 120B and 406 — offences under — Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 220 — accused contended that since the incident constituting the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC had taken place at Jahanaganj in the State of U.P., the Court at Bhagalpur lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the same — High Court relying on Section 220, Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that there appears to exist a continuity of action to attract sub-section (1) of section 220, therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Bhagalpur is ousted to try the offence under Section 304B — held no infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2000)
Uka Ram Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/10/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Dying declaration — Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 161 — Indian Evidence Act — Section 32 — Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 326 and 498a – conviction and sentence under — dying declaration — sole evidence upon which conviction is based — held despite knowing the fact that the deceased was a mental patient, the investigating agency did not take any precaution to ensure that the incident was suicidal or homicidal — the probability of the deceased committing suicide has not been eliminated; there also exist a doubt about the mental condition of the deceased at the time she made dying declaration — fit case in which the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 1998)
Arvind Singh Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 4/26/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Dying Declaration — Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 304B, 498a/34 r/w 120B — conviction and sentence under — High Court converted husband’s charge of 304B to 302 — challenged — conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of the mother to whom the deceased was supposed to have made the declaration — held not worth acceptance — High Court fell in error in such acceptance — evidence is not sufficient enough to reach an irresistible conclusion of the involvement of the husband as the murderer or even being charged with an offence under Section 304B — conviction and sentence set aside — appeal allowed — appellant acquitted.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 1998 (with Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1999))
Satvir Singh and others Appellants with Tejinder Pal Kaur Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another Respondents, decided on 9/27/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 r/w Sections 116, 498a and 511 r/w Section 304B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — section 2 — dowry — definition of — dearth of evidence to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment connected with the demand for dowry, soon before the attempt to commit suicide by running in front of a running train — conviction under section 498a upheld.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1995)
Gananath Pattnaik Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent, decided on 2/6/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Section 498a – conviction and sentence under — even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case — held the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1996)
Girdhar Shankar Tawade Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/24/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 498a and 306 — maintainability of a charge under Section 498 (A) of the Code by reason of an order of acquittal under Section 306 of the Code — held acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 1995 (With Crl.A. Nos. 1458-1459 of 1995))
K. Prema S. Rao and another Appellants with State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others Respondents with Yadla Ranga Rao and another Respondents, decided on 10/25/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — sections 304B, 306 and 498a — dowry death — cruelty — conviction and sentence under section 498a — appeal preferred by parents of deceased seeking conviction of accused u/s. 304B, IPC — omission to frame charge u/s. 306 — although a charge specifically under Section 306 IPC was not framed but all facts and ingredients constituting that offence were mentioned in the Statement of Charges framed under section 494A and Section 304B of IPC — held same facts and evidence on which accused No.1 was charged under Section 498a and Section 304B, the accused can be convicted and sentenced under Section 306 IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2002)
Sadhu Ram and another Appellants Vs. The State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/10/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 498a, 302 and 201 — conviction and sentence under — it is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration — held no evidence to corroborate testimony of Mala Ram, therefore, it is not safe to base a conviction on the testimony of such a witness — appellants acquitted — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2002)
Hira Lal and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi Respondent, decided on 7/25/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 304B, 306 and 498a – dowry death — a conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the ‘death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances’ — sufficient materials to convict the accused-appellants in terms of Section 306 IPC along with Section 498a IPC — unfortunate that the High Court failed to notice that the minimum sentence for offence punishable under Section 304B is seven years in terms of sub-section (2) thereof.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 2002)
Kaliyaperumal and Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 8/27/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498a – conviction challenged before the High Court — High Court only reduced the sentence from nine years to seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC but confirmed the sentence five years as imposed in respect of offences punishable under Section 498a – the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced in respect of offence under Section 304B — the appellant-Kaliyaperumal has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Section 304B and 498a. As the High Court has awarded the minimum punishment prescribed no interference with the sentences is called for. So far as appellant no. 2 Muthulakshmi is concerned, there is inadequacy of material to attract culpability under Section 304B. But Section 498a IPC is clearly attracted to her case — the appeal is allowed so far as her conviction under Section 304B IPC is concerned, but stands dismissed so far as it relates to offence punishable under Section 498aIPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003)
Bharat Chaudhary and another Appellants Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on10/8/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code — Section 438 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 504, 498a and 406 — Dowry Prohibition Act — Sections 3/4 — accused of — application for grant of anticipatory bail — rejected by the High Court — order under challenge — anticipatory bail granted — no restriction on the power of the courts empowered to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. — the duration of anticipation bail should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period — judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 240 of 2003 etc. (Crl. Misc. Petition No. 9841 of 2003))
Smt. Swati Verma Petitioner Vs. Rajan Verma and others Respondents, decided on 11/11/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act — Section 13(B) — decree of divorce — granting of — report for offences under Section 498a and 406 IPC lodged — marriage broken irretrievably — with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India — application for divorce granted.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2003)
Kamalkar Nandram Bhavsar and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharshtra Respondent, decided on11/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498a read with Section 34 — charged under — acquittal — High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- — since there is an illegality which vitiates the sentence an opportunity should be given to the accused persons of being heard before awarding the sentence, hence, on that ground, viz. on the ground of hearing the appellants on the question of sentence alone remanded the matter back to the trial court for giving an opportunity to the accused to make a representation regarding the sentence proposed — sentence reduced to 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- — 80% of the fine amount, if realised, should be paid to the parents of the victim girl as compensation.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.431 of 1997)
Yasosha and Anr. Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent, decided on 2/4/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498a, 304B and 201 — conviction confirmed — the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants — conviction and sentence affirmed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2004)
Biman Chatterjee Appellant Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and another Respondents, decided on 2/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a – complaint under — grant of bail on the assurance of compromise — cancellation of bail — the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise –no compromise — non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail — what the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code — having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 1997)
Ashok Vishnu Davare Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 2/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — conviction under — confirmed by High Court — the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and failed to notice the glaring improvements made by the witnesses in their evidence given before the court. These improvements in our opinion materially affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case hence it is not safe to base a conviction.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1998)
The State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Another Respondents, decided on3/17/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498a – conviction by trial court — legality of the judgment of DB of Andhra Pradesh High Court holding respondents not guilty questioned by State of Andhra Pradesh — in view of the fact that the death occurred within the very few months of the marriage, and the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 that shortly before the deceased committed suicide, demand of dowry was made, the plea in untenable. The accusations clearly stand established so far as A-1, respondent no.1 is concerned. So far as accused A-3 is concerned, there is no evidence that he ever made any demand of dowry — custodial sentence of 7 years would meet the end of justice for respondent no.1- A-1.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999 (with Crl. A. No. 480 of 1999))
Dalbir Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. Respondent, decided on 4/8/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 304-B and 498a – trial under — in view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court rendered in Lakhjit Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab (1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173 and Sangarabonia Sreenu vs. State of A.P. 1997(5) SCC 348 these appeals have been directed to be placed for hearing before a three-Judge Bench — whether in a given case is it possible to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC if a charge for the said offence has not been framed against him — in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C., it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion — he is convicted under Section 306 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1998)
Sakatar Singh and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 4/13/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498a read with Section 34 — conviction under — the trial court committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants — there has been no application of mind by the High Court which is evident from a perusal of the judgment of the said court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2004)
Muthu Kutty and another Appellants Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on11/19/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B — conviction under — the acceptability of alleged dying declaration in the instant case has to be considered. The dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it — there is no material to show that dying declaration was result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility — the Courts below have rightly relied upon the dying declaration — something unusual in the conclusion of the trial Court. After having accepted that the accused persons were responsible for setting the deceased ablaze, applied Section 304 Part B IPC and not Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court observed that the accused without knowing what they were doing at the relevant time poured kerosene and set fire on the deceased and in view of this situation Section 302 IPC was not applied and Section 304 B IPC was applied. The reasoning is clearly wrong — no prejudice is caused to the accused appellants as they were originally charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with Section 304-B IPC — the conviction as recorded and affirmed and the sentences imposed do not warrant any interference.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1274 of 2004)
Ruchi Agarwal Appellant Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others Respondents, decided on 11/5/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a, 323 and 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act — sections 3 and 4 — complaint under — appeal — the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents — it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue — proceedings quashed and appeals dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2004)
Satyajit Banerjee and others Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal and others Respondents, decided on11/23/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — trial under — acquittal — de novo trial ordered by High Court — direction for retrial should not be made in all or every case where acquittal of accused is for want of adequate or reliable evidence. In Best Bakery case, the first trial was found to be a farce and is described as ‘mock trial’. Therefore, the direction for retrial was in fact, for a real trial. Such extraordinary situation alone can justify the directions as made by this Court in the Best Bakery Case — even if a retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case. The trial Judge has to decide the case on the basis of the evidence already on record and the additional evidence which would be recorded on retrial — the trial Judge, after retrial, shall take a decision on the basis of the entire evidence on record and strictly in accordance with law, without in any manner, being influenced or inhibited by anything said on the evidence in the judgment of the High Court or this Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 1999)
State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Respondent, decided on 1/18/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201 and 498a and alternatively under section 304 B — charge under found guilty — even if the evidence in this regard is ignored, the remaining evidence on record clearly proves the complicity of the respondent in the murder of his wife Veena — Court dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal — no rational justification for the conclusion reached by the High Court. The High Court has misread the evidence on record and has completely ignored the relevant evidence on record which was accepted by the Trial Court — judgment of the trial court restored.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.938-939 of 1999)
State of Orissa Appellant Vs. Niranjan Mohapatra and Others Respondents, decided on 2/3/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Acquittal — appeal against — the appellants had been convicted by the trial court under Sections498a and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498a and 7 years under Section 304B IPC — the High Court by its impugned judgment and order has acquitted all of them of the charges levelled against them — so far as the allegations relating to the offence under Section 498a is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the respondents. The High Court has considered the evidence on record — so far as the offence under Section 304B is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that soon before the occurrence the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment. In the absence of any such evidence, conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained — the High Court has recorded the order of acquittal based on the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of such evidence.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 1999)
K.R. Soorachari Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 4/13/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a – Dowry Prohibition Act — Sections 3, 4 and 6 — appellant found guilty — the appellant is entitled to acquittal so far the charge under Section 498a IPC is concerned — the Trial Court concluded that except the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 there was no other evidence on record to show that three days after the marriage negotiations PW-1 had sent Rs.10,000/- through his wife and PW-7 to be paid to the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that neither there was any demand for dowry nor was any amount paid to the appellant by way of dowry — the High Court found that the reasoning of the Trial Court was unsustainable — The finding recorded by the Trial Court in our view completely ignores the cogent and reliable evidence on record which proves the case of the prosecution that dowry was demanded and paid. Such a finding ignoring relevant evidence can not be sustained even in an appeal against acquittal — the conviction of the appellant under the Dowry Prohibition Act is fully justified.

(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No.141 of 2005)
Sushil Kumar Sharma Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Others Respondents, decided on 7/19/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a – cruelty — petition to declare Section 498a pertaining to cruelty on woman by husband and relatives as unconstitutional to stop victimization of innocent persons by unscrupulous persons making false accusations — held object of the provision is prevention of dowry menace — mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidated a Legislation — investigating agencies should make efforts so that an innocent persons is not made to suffer on account of baseless and malicious allegations.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2004)
Naveen Kohli Appellant Vs. Neelu Kohli Respondent, decided on 3/21/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Hindu, Marriage Act, 1955 — petition under for divorce — marriage totally dead — total disappearance of substratum in the marriage — the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Court would like to recommended the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1619 of 2005)
Rajendra & Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 7/27/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 302 read with Section 34 — conviction and sentence affirmed by the High Court — the two written dying declarations and the one oral dying declaration are consistent — no reason to discard the dying declarations which have been relied upon by the Trial Court as well as the High Court — Court does not attach much weight to the fact that the second dying declaration is not recorded by a Magistrate, and that it has been recorded by a person nominated by the Tehsildar to record dying declarations which in normal course is the duty of an Executive Magistrate — record consistent and all the evidence points to the guilt of the accused.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2006)
Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents,decided on 10/13/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498a and 34 — commission of the offence under — addition of the charge under Section 304B — it would be proper for the Trial Court to defer the question of framing charge under Section 304B after examination of doctor.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 2005)
Surender Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 11/22/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 306/34 — charge under — it has come in evidence that Surender gave beating to Pushpa to such an extent that she became unable even to walk — a young pregnant woman having a child in the womb would not ordinarily commit suicide unless she was compelled to do so — she would not have felt depressed if she had not been harassed on account of demand for dowry — both the courts below have held against the accused and this Court fully agrees with the reasoning given in the judgment by the courts below.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.223 of 2007)
Manjunath Chennabasapa Madalli Petitioner Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 2/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 302 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgement rendered by DB of Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal piled by the appellant — appellant found guilty under sections 498-A and 302 by the trial court — High Court set a side the conviction under sections 498a, but maintained the conviction under section 302IPC — the only circumstance which was highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court was that there was unnatural death and additionally the so called dying declaration — mere fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance against the accused particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable conviction set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2006)
Bandu Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/9/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a — conviction under — on appeal, High Court set aside the conviction under section 498a, held him guilty under Section 302 — appeal — no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case as it is consistent with the medical evidence.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2007)
Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent, decided on3/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — Section 304B read with Section 498a/34 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition, Act, 1961 — appellants faced trial and convicted under — DB of Calcutta High Court modified the sentence but dismissed the appeal — legality of the judgment questioned — if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under “dowry death” and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives — there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry — mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2007)
Laxman Anaji Dhundale & another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/4/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34 and 498 A — the appellants who are the parents of accused No. 1 Rajendra, are accused Nos. 2 & 3 in this case. The trial court convicted them along with accused No. 1 under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. They were also found guilty under Sections 498a/34 IPC and were sentenced to three years’ R.I. and also a fine — whether the guilt of the appellants, who are the parents of Rajendra, is proved beyond reasonable doubt — direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case. However, in order to bring home the charge of common intention the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34. In the present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was such a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in question. Hence, in our opinion, the charge under Section 34 IPC has not been established — the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants and hence this appeal has to be allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2006)
Dnyaneshwar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/20/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markendey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — section 302 and 498a – the learned trial Judge held the appellant as also accused Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of commission of offences under Section 302 as well as under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code — on appeal to the High Court, High Court found the appellant guilty — the ante-mortem injuries clearly go to show that she had been done to death. Only because P.W.9- Dr. Ravindra failed to notice some injuries on her neck so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that the death was caused by asphyxia, court is of the opinion that the appellant in a case of this nature cannot take benefit thereof.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2007)
Gajanand Agarwal Petitioner Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. With Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2007 Respondents, decided on 4/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Bail — granting of — the offences indicated were punishable under Sections 498a, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — the reasoning given by the High Court that only the family members earlier did not lodge reports and, therefore, prima facie throws doubt about alleged torture, is another conclusion which was not required to be given while dealing with the bail application — the High Court has virtually written an order of acquittal by commenting on the evidentiary value of evidence on record. This is impermissible. Only broad features of the case are to be noted. Elaborate analysis of the evidence is to be avoided — the impugned orders of the High Court are indefensible and are set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2006)
Dayal Singh Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/3/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498a and 302 — Conviction Under — appeal to High Court dismissed — appeal by special leave — dying declaration — value — the charge against the appellant is fully established from the evidence on record and there is absolutely no ground to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge and also by the High Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007)
Ananda Mohan Sen and Anr. Appellants Vs. Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007, decided on 5/16/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 306 — Conviction and Sentence by DB affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan — Sentence under Section 306 modified by High Court in case of appellant No.1 reducing the sentence from 5 yrs. to 3 yrs. — whether a case for conviction under Section 306 IP has been made out. It is no doubt true that for arriving at such a conclusion, the prosecution must , inter alia, establish that the deceased committed suicide and she had been subject to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498a IPC — it is not a case where interference with the impugned judgment is called for.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1203 of 2006)
Sukhram Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondents, decided on 8/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201, 304 B, 498a and 34 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 222, 464(2)(a) — High Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Appeal by appellant A-2 — Supreme Court held that no charge for offence punishable under Section 302 was framed against appellant A-2 — Section 222, Criminal Procedure Code had no application in facts as offences under the said Sections are vastly different — High Court did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 462(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code — High Court not justified in convicting Appellant A-2 under S.302, IPC — prosecution failed to establish the existence of a motive — no established circumstance to complete the chain to bring the offence under section 201 IPC — prosecution also failed to establish that conduct of appellant — both at time of occurrence and immediately thereafter — is consistent with hypothesis of his guilt — Order of High Court set aside — Appeal of appellant A-2 allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
M. Srinivasulu Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 9/10/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. D.K. Jain .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304 B and 498 A — conviction under — upheld by High Court — challenged — by the impugned judgment conviction recorded in respect of co-accused Laxmi was set aside and she was directed to be acquitted — in fact there is no allegation of any harassment due to dowry. What the trial court and the High Court appears to have done is to pick up one line from one place and another from another place and conclude that there was demand of dowry. Reading of the letters in the entirety show that there was, in fact, no mention of any demand for dowry. Therefore the conviction in terms of Section 498a and Section 304B cannot be maintained. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1612 of 2005)
Kishan Singh & Another Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 315 — conviction under — the High Court again examined the evidence on record, heard the arguments of the parties and considered the reasons recorded and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. It held that as far as accused Nos. 3 and 4, parents-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari were concerned, the trial Court was fully justified in convicting both of them for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC. Accordingly, their conviction as well as order of sentence was maintained — as to accused No.1-Manmohan Singh-husband, however, the High Court held that from the evidence, it was not proved that he was responsible for committing an offence punishable under Section 498a, IPC. The Court observed that he was serving in Indian Army and was occasionally attending matrimonial home after taking leave. There was no sufficient evidence of demand of dowry by accused No. 1. The trial Court, hence, was not right in convicting him under Section 498a, IPC. He was, therefore, ordered to be acquitted — the order convicting accused Nos. 3 and 4, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari under Sections 304B and 315, IPC recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is challenged in the present appeal — both the Courts were wholly right and fully justified in recording an order of conviction and in imposing sentence on appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 4 — there was no occasion for the trial Court to go to the extent of describing the evidence of PW4-Gopal Singh to be false. Even if it is conceded that in the light of other evidence on record, the Court was not convinced as to the demand of dowry by accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh, 10/12 days prior to the incident , the Court could have acquitted accused No.1 on that ground — it was certainly not a case of making scathing remarks against the witness.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2001)
Devi Lal Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B read with section 498a — charge under — section 113A of the Act relates to offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Code, whereas Section 113B relates to Section 304-B thereof. Whereas in terms of Section 113A of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in terms of Section 113B, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subject by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry — the question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are : (1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death — evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggest that Pushpa had all along been subjected to harassment or cruelty only on the ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage. For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand of any particular item should have been made — no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2007)
Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another Respondents,decided on 12/13/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1868 — sections 498a and 406 read with section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act — proceedings under — petition under section 482 for quashment of proceedings pending in appeal against the order under — marriage disolved remarried — as on today a period of almost nine years has elapsed of the marriage of appellant No.1 and Shireesha Bhavani and seven years from her second marriage. Therefore, at this belated stage, there does not appear to be any justification for continuation of the proceedings.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2007)
Onkar Nath Mishra & others Appellants Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & others Respondents, decided on12/14/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1868 — section 498a and 406/34 — trial under — the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out — section 498a I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, charge under Section 498a I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned — the trial court shall now proceed with the trial untrammeled by any observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2006)
Vikas & others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 1/21/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302, 342 read with section 34 — conviction under — all the three accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 302 and 342 read with Section 34, IPC. For an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, the accused were ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each — the High Court held that since it was not the case of the prosecution that Rekha was driven to death by committing suicide due to demand of dowry, it could not be said that the offence was established. All the accused persons were, therefore, acquitted of offence punishable under Section 498a read with Section 34, IPC — both the courts were wholly right and fully justified in relying upon two dying declarations recorded by (i) PW 5 Ramchandra, Special Judicial Magistrate on May 17, 2001 — and in discarding evidence of PW 1 Laxman, father of victim Rekha and PW2 Manohar, Panch — no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2008)
Sunita Jain Appellant Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain & others Respondents, decided on 1/25/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Criminal Proceedings — quashing — appeal is against the judgment and order allowing the application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. — the High Court was wrong in quashing the proceedings — it is clear that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as also against other accused for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 342 and 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court satisfied that prima facie case was made out and accordingly charges were framed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as against other accused. In a petition challenging that action, the High Court partly allowed the petition vide its order dated October 22, 1997 and quashed charges against brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant herein but upheld the order of framing of charge against the remaining respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 — all the Courts including this Court were of the view that there was prima facie case for framing of charge against the respondents herein. It appears that thereafter the parties tried for amicable settlement of the matter again — the order impugned in the present appeal is thus clearly illegal, improper, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2003 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2008)
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel with Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and another Appellants Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others with State of Gujarat and another Respondents, decided on 3/14/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 406 and 114 — complaint petition filed — appellants granted bail subject to the condition that they would not leave India without permission of the Court — application for cancellation a bail filed — on an application filed by the 3rd respondent on 24th April, 1998 the husband of the appellant was declared an absconder and a public proclamation was issued in terms of Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching her properties if she did not present before the Learned Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication — on their failure to remain present within a period of 30 days their properties were subjected to order of attachment under Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 5th January, 2004 the District Magistrate was asked by the Leaned Metropolitan Magistrate to take further action in terms of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by holding a public auction of the said properties. In the said order it was wrongly sated that the properties belonged to the appellants and husband of the 3rd respondent, whereas in fact Appellant No.1 alone was the owner thereof — appellant and her husband returned to India. They filed an application for cancellation of the said Standing Warrants — Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai is an Advocate. She filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws. She initially filed a Complaint Petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as Case No.1662 of 1996. It was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. It has since been dismissed for default. She initiated another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn. Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another, being Case No.47 of 1996 under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending. Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants — gross injustice has been caused to the appellant. She did not deserve such harsh treatments at the hands of the High Court. Respondent No.3 speaks of her own human rights, forgetting the human rights of the appellant, far less the funadamental right of life and liberty conferred on an accused in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India — the right of property is no longer a fundamental right. But still it is a constitutional right. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right. The procedures laid down for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with — the interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2008)
Rekha Patel Appellant Vs. Pankaj Verma and others Respondents, decided on 3/3/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 226 — petition under — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution — complaint filed by Appellant under — sections 498a, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a writ petition for quashing the F.I.R. and for stay of arrest pending the disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 1.11.2006. By the impugned order dated 7.11.2006 the High Court declined to accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the respondents — presently Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to the State of U.P. Even otherwise, as noted in Adri Dharan Das’s case (supra), after surrender of accused and rejection of his bail application, the protection of the nature granted by the High Court cannot be given — the respondents had moved for bail and have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned — this Court declines to interfere in the appeal; but have considered it necessary to indicate the correct parameters so that the mistake committed by the High Court is not repeated.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2008)
Bhura Ram and others Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan & another Respondents, decided on 4/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 156(3) — complaint under for offences under sections498a, 406 and 147 of IPC — jurisdiction — cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed — the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 4247 of 2007)
Sayeeda Farhana Shamim Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & another Respondents, decided on 5/16/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 32, 406 and 498a and Prevention of Dowry Act — section 3 and 4 — complaint under — the power of the Magistrate should not be fettered either under Section 244 or under sub-section (6) of Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. and full latitude should be given to the Magistrate to exercise the discretion to entertain a supplementary list — the view taken by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court cannot be sustained and consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2006 is set aside and it is for the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur to examine the remaining witnesses from the supplementary list given by the complainant and then to proceed according to law.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2008)
M.Saravana Porselvi Appellant Vs. A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & others Respondents, decided on5/27/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — section 13(1)(e) — petition under — customary divorce — registered — permanent alimony received by the wife — there does not exist any period of limitation in respect of an offence under Section 494, as the maximum period of punishment which can be imposed therefor is seven years — the customary divorce may be legal or illegal. The fact that such an agreement had been entered into or the appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of permanent alimony, however, stands admitted. The document is a registered one. Appellant being in the legal profession must be held to be aware of the legal implication thereof. If the contents of the said agreement are taken to be correct, indisputably the parties had been living separately for more than ten years. How then a case under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have made out and that too at such a distant point of time is the question, particularly in view of the bar of limitation as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise it is unbelievable that the appellant was really harassed by her husband or her in-laws — a criminal prosecution shall not lie. It was initiated mala fide. Thus, if it is allowed to continue, the same shall be an abuse of the process of court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2008)
Narayanamurthy Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka & another Respondents, decided on 5/13/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — sections 3, 4 and 6 — trial under — the learned trial Judge found the evidence of prosecution witnesses insufficient and lacking for holding A-1 and A-3 guilty of the offences alleged against them and, accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges — on appeal by the State, the Division Bench of the High Court convicted A-1 for offences under Sections498a and 304B of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304B, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498a, IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months — the evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court suffer from manifest error and improper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal of A-1 cannot be sustained — the considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to the involvement of A-1 in the death of Jagadeshwari is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution, hence, the High Court was in error in basing conviction of A-1 on weak and slender evidence appearing against him.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2003)
Rajbabu and another Appellants Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 7/24/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — sections 306 and 498a — conviction under — appeal — dismissal by High Court — the deceased was of the view point that her life has been spoiled by marrying Appellant No. 1. The letter reflects the attitude of the in-laws of the deceased towards the deceased. In the said letter there was no reference of any act or incident whereby the appellants were alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide — on such slender evidence, therefore, court is not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC — whether an offence is made out under section 498a of IPC. Though the letter allegedly written by the deceased mentions the fact that the attitude of the family was not good towards the deceased and she was not treated well but there is no mentioned about any of such incident — conviction under Sections 306 and 498a of the IPC passed against the appellant No. 2 set aside and this court acquits her granting her benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed in so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2003)
Dinesh Seth Appellant Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Respondent, decided on 8/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B and 498a — appeal directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court whereby the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code — but was convicted under Section 498a IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment — an offence under Section498a IPC is made out if the woman is subjected to physical assault, humiliation, harassment and mental torture — even though the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish charge under Section 304 or 306 IPC, conviction under Section 498a IPC can be upheld because the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellant.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2001)
B. Venkat Swamy Appellant Vs. Vijaya Nehru and another Respondents, decided on 8/25/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 302 — acquittal under — challenged — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of respondent no.1 who was convicted for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498a and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — respondent and his mother faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498a IPC. In addition, respondent-accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, found that the accusations against A2 i.e. mother of the respondent – accused were not established and she was acquitted of the charges. However, respondent-accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498a, 302 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act — the examination in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. appears to have been done as an empty formality. The incriminating materials were not put to him. Though the High Court has not dealt with question of applicability of Section 498 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, but the evidence adduced does not establish the accusations — there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2001)
Chattar Singh and another Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 8/26/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — section 302, 498a and 201— conviction under — appellant-Mange Ram was convicted for offence punishable under Section 498a IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court as also the sentences for both the appellants — after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility — the extra judicial confession before PW-10 which has been relied upon by both the trial Court and the High Court cannot be lost sight of — the conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, considering the age of A-2 the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which is nearly one year so far as A-2 is concerned. Except the modification of sentence so far as A-2 is concerned the appeal is dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1453 of 2003)
State of A.P. Appellant Vs. Guvva Satyanarayana Respondent, decided on 9/24/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — conviction under — sentenced to file and two years — the High Court found that the charge in respect of Section 302 IPC rests on dying declaration purportedly to have been made by the deceased at 5.40 a.m. on 12.4.1994. Offence had taken place on 11.4.1994 at 9 p.m. The High Court found that the accusations so far as Section 302 IPC cannot be established and the dying declaration was not free from suspicion. However, the charge relatable to Section 498a was held to have been proved. For the same, sentence of two years RI imprisonment enhanced to three years RI — the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2001)
Balwant Singh and others Appellants Vs. State of H.P. Respondent, decided on 9/29/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding each of the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while setting aside the conviction and the sentence imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC — challenged in this appeal — there is no material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-law of the deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted of the charge. So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the accusations have been established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the documentary evidence and the exhibited letters and the convictions recorded so far as they are concerned cannot be faulted — the High Court has imposed sentence of one year. Considering the age of the father-in-law and mother-in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence already undergone by them while upholding the conviction the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal stands dismissed so far as A-2 is concerned.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2003)
Rajendran and another Appellants Vs. State Asstt. Commnr. of Police Law & Order Respondent, decided on12/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — originally, the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Section 498a and 304 B IPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of offence referred to Section 304 B and convicted them for offence under Section 498a IPC — the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498(A) — appeals — sections 304B and 498a, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498a gives the meaning of `cruelty’. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of `cruelty’ — section 498a IPC has two limbs. The first limb of Section498a provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. `Cruelty’ has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide — no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2008)
Vijay Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 12/1/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a 306 and 304B — trial under — Dowry death — daughter-in-law dies due to burns in matrimonial residence — trial court convicted mother-in-law and acquitted husband on a letter by the deceased daughter-in-law to her father, a prosecution witness — on appeal, High Court convicted the husband also based on the contents of the same letter — appeal — Supreme Court upheld trial court’s judgment.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Original Jurisdiction Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2007)
Rajesh Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 1/23/2009.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 406, 498a read with section 34 — transfer of Criminal case filed under — this transfer petition was posted before Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6.12.2008. The parties and their lawyers appeared and filed a joint petition stating that their disputes have been settled under the guidelines of the mediators who acted as Amicus Curiae — it is heartening to note that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have agreed to the terms. The transfer petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2009)
Varikuppal Srinivas Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 1/28/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 304B — conviction under — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 498a and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — the inevitable conclusion is that the trial court and the High Court have rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498a and 304B IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on2/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a, 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498a IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- — original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on2/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a, 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498a IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- — original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2009)
Munish Bhasin and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and another Respondents, decided on 2/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 406 read with section 34 — complaint filed by wife for alleged commission of offences under against him and against his parents — High Court imposed the condition of payment of Rs. 12,500/- as maintenance for release on bail — assailed — the direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2006)
Pradeep Kumar Appellant/Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 3/31/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 304B — conviction under — upheld by the DB of Punjab & Haryana High Court — appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the second offence — appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 304(B) IPC and Section 498a IPC. Appellant alone was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — the only evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is that the accused and the deceased stayed in the same house. That is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts of the present case. However, the accusations related to Section 304 B IPC are satisfied — while setting aside the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, this Court upholds the conviction, so far as it relates to Section 304 B IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2003)
Sundar Babu and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent(s), decided on 2/19/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — petition under — dismissal by single Judge — challenged in this appeal — the complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec.498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — the powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution — the appeal deserves to be allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Petition No. C.C.No. 385/2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, are quashed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2001)
Satish Kumar Batra and others Appellants/Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on4/1/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — conviction under — confirmed by additional sessions Judge — revision petition — dismissed by High Court — challenged in this appeal — six persons were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by Santosh Kumari — nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on bail pursuant to order dated 9.7.2001. Therefore, while upholding the conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the appellant nos.2 & 3 i.e. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations so far as they are concerned.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2007)
Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 4/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 read with section 34, 498a and 323 read with section 34 — conviction under upheld by DB — the case of the prosecution is based on certain circumstances and the Trial Court and High Court found those circumstances to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of the appellant. The High Court found that the accusations for dowry torture were not established and therefor, it acquitted the appellant of the charge relating to Section 498a of the I.P.C. — the judgment of the High Court is assailed on the ground that the circumstances highlighted by the Trial Court and the High Court do not form a complete chain in order to rule out the innocence of the accused and to unerringly point at the accused to be author of the crime.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2009)
Raman Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 4/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — trial under — the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur had directed acquittal of the appellant and two co-accused persons who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab in respect of co-accused Satish Kumar, Madan Lal and Asha while upholding the conviction of the present appellant — the High Court’s judgment is not only sketchy but also devoid of reasons. Various factors highlighted would go to show that the prosecution has squarely failed to establish the accusations so far as the appellant is concerned. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2001 with Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2001)
Kanti Lal with Arvind Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — conviction under — by the impugned order, the High Court while dismissing the appeal of Arvind Kumar and Kanti Lal and confirming their conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1993, has set aside the conviction of Sanwal Chand, Bhanwar Lal, Chetan Lal, Popat Lal and Smt. Bagtu and acquitted them of the charged offences — having regard to the entire evidence discussed above and having carefully and closely considered the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken by both the courts was reasonable and plausible — no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2004)
State of West Bengal Appellant Vs. Dipak Halder and another Respondents, decided on 5/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a read with section 34 and section 302 read with section 109 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the three appellants before it who are described hereinafter as accused no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Respondent No.1-Dipak Halder was married to one Rimu. Alleging that deceased Rimu was killed by respondent No.1 and that she was tortured, for non-fulfillment of dowry on demand, prosecution was launched. Charge under Section 498a read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against all the three accused persons. Charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against respondent No.1, Dipak Halder while charge under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC was framed against other two accused persons — the circumstances point to only one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused-respondent no.1. The judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2009)
Shaikh Maqsood Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a , 304B and 302 — trial under — trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498a and 304B while recording conviction under Section 302 IPC — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
D. Jayanna Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304 B and 498 A — conviction under — upheld by the DB of Karnataka High Court — challenged in this appeal — though the evidence appears to be sufficient to bring in application of Section 498a, there is definite inadequacy to attrach Section 304B IPC — there is sufficient evidence relating to demand of dowry though for the purpose of Section304B, the evidence is not sufficient.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 2006)
Subramaniam Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 5/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 302 — FIR under — the learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 14.11.2000 recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of appellant. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2005, the High Court while affirming the view of the trial court with regard to the order of acquittal of appellant of the charges under Section 498a of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, recorded a judgment of conviction and sentence against him under Section 302 of the IPC opining that its findings were unreasonable — in view of the admission made by the prosecution witnesses, the High Court, committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that he did not possess any land whatsoever — the High Court was considering a judgment of acquittal; it set aside a part of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. It could not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal if two views were possible. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or otherwise perverse. Circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, are not such which would lead to a definite conclusion that appellant and appellant alone had committed the offence. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court should have approached the case with some caution — the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2003)
State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Guntabai @ Bhagirathaibai and others Respondent(s), decided on4/21/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — three persons including the present respondent No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so far as present respondent No. 1 is concerned, and Sections 498a read with Section 34 IPC so far as all the three accused persons are concerned — judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2003)
State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Guntabai @ Bhagirathaibai and others Respondent(s), decided on4/21/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — three persons including the present respondent No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so far as present respondent No. 1 is concerned, and Sections 498a read with Section 34 IPC so far as all the three accused persons are concerned — judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2009)
Sasikumar Appellant Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 5/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 — conviction upheld by DB of Madras High Court while setting aside the conviction in terms of section 307 — appellant faced trial in the Court of Sessions, Vellore and was convicted in terms of Sections 302 and 307 IPC. He was acquitted of the charges relating to Section 498a IPC — judgment of DB challenged in this appeal — though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant — the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court placing reliance on the dying declaration cannot be faulted.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2003)
Manju Ram Kalita Appellant(s) Vs. State of Assam Respondent(s), decided on 5/29/2009.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 494 and 498a — conviction under— the High Court concurred with the finding of facts, recorded by the Trial Court dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup — it is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse — all the three courts below erred in not considering the case in correct perspective — in view of the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and punishment for the said offence awarded by the courts below are set aside. However, conviction and sentence under Section 494 IPC are maintained.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2004)
Shakson Belthissor Appellant Vs. State of Kerala and another Respondents, decided on 7/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: FIR and the charge under — petition for quashing the same — rejected by the Kerala High Court — appeal against the judgment — the High Court, however, without issuing any notice on the said petition rejected the petition holding that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the appellant — the scope and power of quashing a first information report and charge sheet under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive — on a reading of the FIR as also the charge sheet filed against the appellant no case under Section 498a is made out on the face of the record, and therefore, both the FIR as also the charge sheet are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC — the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009)
Raj Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 7/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 and 498a — conviction under — sentenced to imprisonment for life — the evidence on record shows that the deceased was totally unarmed. The appellant had inflicted blow with Polpat on the vital part of the body of the deceased, namely, head and inflicted the blow with such a great force that it resulted into her death. It is not the case of the appellant that the injury on the head of the deceased was accidental nor it is the case of the appellant that the blow was aimed on some other part of the body and because of supervening cause like sudden intervention or movement of the deceased the blow struck on the head. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it will have to be held that it was the intention of the appellant to cause that very injury which ultimately proved fatal — the offence committed by the appellant would be punishable as murder under Section 302 IPC and his case would not fall under the first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2009)
Subodh Kumar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on 7/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — bail granted to the appellant — cancelled — appeal — while considering the factors relevant for consideration of bail already granted vis-à-vis the factors relevant for rejection of bail, this Court pointed out that for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances will be relevant. The said observations were not intended to restrict the power of a superior court to cancel bail in appropriate cases on other grounds. In fact it is now well settled that if a superior court finds that the court granting bail had acted on irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to take note of any statutory bar to grant bail, or if there was manifest impropriety as for example failure to hear the public prosecutor/complainant where required, an order for cancellation of bail can in fact be made — while cancelling bail, the superior Court would be justified in considering the question whether irrelevant material were taken into consideration by the court granting bail — this Court is of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in confirming the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the bail which was arbitrarily granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2004)
Undavali Narayana Rao Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 7/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — conviction under by sessions Judge — affirmed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh — appeal — the High Court after appreciating the entire evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court — no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the courts below.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2009)
U. Suvetha Appellant Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another Respondents, decided on 5/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — whether the term “relative of husband of a woman” within the meaning of Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code should be given an extended meaning is the question involved herein.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2009)
Sukanti Moharana Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent, decided on 7/29/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — 304B and 498a — conviction under — setting aside — but conviction — under Section 302 — the High Court while upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also held that the dying declaration (Ext. gets independent corroboration from the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her parents i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 as well as PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 — taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, there is no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
Arun Kumar Sharma Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 10/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with 34, 498a & 304-B read with Section 34 — murder for dowry and cruelty on account of demand of dowry — accused convicted by Trial Court for committing murder of his wife — witnesses not inspired any confidence — found in the post-mortem report that the deceased had multiple bruises over front of neck varying in sizes and there was extra blood in the soft tissues of neck with fracture of hyoid bone of trachea — FIR sent to Magistrate after delay of 5 days — Investigation Officer not examined neighbours — apathy on the part of the I.O. to examining the house created suspicion — not appeared any serious effort made on the part of the appellate Court to delve deep into the record of the case and the evidence of the witnesses — due to the slip-shod investigation the death of deceased to go unpunished — benefit of doubt given to the accused — conviction order of trial Court and the appellate Court set aside — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003)
Neelu Chopra and another Appellant(s) Vs. Bharti Respondent(s), decided on 10/7/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 498a read with Section 114 — misbehaviour and cruelty on the part of the husband and his relatives — complaint filed by the complainant/respondent against her husband and parents-in-law on account of unreasonable demand of dowry — all the allegations made against the husband who had expired — no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description — held that it did not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence — the order of High Court set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance quashed — complaint quashed — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2120 of 2009)
Suman Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 11/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a — on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 and statements recorded, the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet only against her in-laws but not against the appellant — application filed by the respondent No. 2 for issuing process against the appellant — Judicial Magistrate & Session Judge directed the appellant be summoned through bailable warrant — appellant challenged the revisional order as police not filed chargesheet against her — held that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence collected the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused — whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC — Yes — statements of complainant’s parents in corroboration with that of the complainant, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment — no interference in the orders of the Courts below — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1469 of 2008)
Govindappa and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A/34 and 302/34 — cruelty by the husband and his relatives and punishment of murder — conviction and sentence under — as per the prosecution, the appellants poured kerosene on the deceased and appellant No.2 set fire in the presence of the neighbours and ran away from the house — due to 100% burn injuries, the victim died — the High Court confirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the A-1, A-2 and A-4 while acquitted A-3 and A-5 of the charges levelled against them — appeal — whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants-accused A-1, A-2, and A-4 for offences punishable under Section 498a, read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC? — Yes — whether the sentence imposed upon the appellants-accused is justifiable? — Yes — whether the High Court is right in confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants? — Yes — prosecution witnesses narrated how the deceased Renuka was humiliated and harassed at the instance of the appellants — though A-3 and A-5 were implicated in the commission of offence but in the absence of further corroboration were rightly acquitted — evidence of PW-9 were found in full corroboration with the dying declaration — PW-12 recorded the dying declaration of Renuka and the same was recorded after ascertaining her condition from PW-7/Doctor — post-mortem report indicated the death due to shock as a result of 100% burn and also found smell of kerosene on deceased body — held no interference in the impugned orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1733 of 2008)
Uday Chakraborty and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent(s), decided on 7/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a/304B — cruelty against the married woman by her husband and his relatives/dowry death — conviction and sentence under — the couple has not even completed a period of two years of their marriage when it was alleged that because of dowry, the accused and other family members tortured the deceased/wife physically and mentally and forcibly burnt her — the learned Sessions Court found all the five accused persons guilty under Sections 498a/304B of IPC and sentenced them accordingly. However, the High Court acquitted two persons and convicted three persons/appellants for the offence — appeal — the prosecution examined 31 witnesses and the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record clearly showed that the appellants have been rightly found guilty of the offence by the High Court as the subsequent statements of different witnesses have fairly established on record that she was tortured and harassed for satisfying the demand of dowry — held that the offence under Sections 304B read with 498a of IPC has been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1182-1184 of 2010)
Vijeta Gajra Appellant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Respondent, decided on 7/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 406 — FIR registered under — for troubling the complainant on account of the dowry demands and for the offence of criminal breach of trust as alleged in respect of the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain and earring set which the appellant had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone — this Court examined the ingredients of Section 498a and found that reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498a, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage, therefore, held that the appellant/foster sister of the complainant’s husband not to be tried for the offence under Section498a, IPC. However, this Court desist from quashing the FIR altogether in view of the allegations made under Section 406 but protected the interest of the appellant by directing that she would not be required to attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme necessity — appeal disposed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2010)
Amar Singh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent(s), decided on 8/3/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patniak(Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Cr. A – 1 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B — dowry death — conviction and sentence under — within 10 months of marriage, deceased was found dead in her in-laws house — deceased’s father lodged a written report that the deceased used to be harassed and humiliated in connection with demand of dowry — the trial court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life to the accused persons with concurrent sentence and fine. The High Court acquitted other accused and confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498a and 304B IPC — appeal — the appellant chose not to examine any defence witness to rebut the presumption of dowry death against him — the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased suffered 100% burns. PW-9/Doctor who performed the autopsy opined that the burns on the deceased were after strangulation and throttling — this court concluded that the statements made by the deceased before PW-4 and PW-5 that the appellant used to taunt the deceased in connection with demand of a Scooter or Rs.25,000/- within a couple of months before the death of the deceased are statements as to “the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death” — since there is no evidence as to the actual role played by the appellant in the death of the deceased, the impugned judgement of the High Court modified to the extent that sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant reduced to RI for 10 years — appeal partly allowed. Cr.A – 2 — acquittal — appeal against — the High Court viewed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the mother and brother-in-law of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt — this court held that a prosecution witness who merely uses the word “harassed” or “tortured” and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the Court in cases under Section 498a and 304B IPC — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1419-1420 of 2010)
Ravindra Tukaram Hiwale Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 8/2/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — cruelty against women by her husband and/or his relatives and abetment of suicide — the deceased suffered serious burn injuries in the kitchen of the house and ultimately died of those injuries. She made a dying declaration that she had a quarrel with her husband over the house-hold chores and over the feeding of the children and she had thereafter poured kerosene on herself and then burnt herself — the trial court convicted & sentenced the appellant to 1 year imprisonment u/sec. 498-A and to a sentence of 4 years u/sec. 306. The High Court enhanced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 306 IPC from four to six years — appeal — the trial court gave a positive finding that the incident was a spontaneous one arising out of a family quarrel in the morning — the sentence awarded by the High Court quashed and the judgement of the trial court confirmed — appeal allowed.

IPC 498a JUDGMENTS

IPC 498a JUDGMENTS
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1386 of 1999)
Pawan Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 3/13/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 and 498a – conviction and sentence under — Evidence Act — Section 113(A) — dowry death — circumstances pointedly point out the accused as a guilty person as abettors — order of conviction cannot be interfered with — appeal dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2001)
Mohan Baitha and Ors. Appellants Vs. Mohan Baitha and Ors. Appellants, decided on 3/21/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal..
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 304B, 498a, 120B and 406 — offences under — Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 220 — accused contended that since the incident constituting the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC had taken place at Jahanaganj in the State of U.P., the Court at Bhagalpur lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the same — High Court relying on Section 220, Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that there appears to exist a continuity of action to attract sub-section (1) of section 220, therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Bhagalpur is ousted to try the offence under Section 304B — held no infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court — appeal dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2000)
Uka Ram Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/10/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Dying declaration — Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 161 — Indian Evidence Act — Section 32 — Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 326 and 498a – conviction and sentence under — dying declaration — sole evidence upon which conviction is based — held despite knowing the fact that the deceased was a mental patient, the investigating agency did not take any precaution to ensure that the incident was suicidal or homicidal — the probability of the deceased committing suicide has not been eliminated; there also exist a doubt about the mental condition of the deceased at the time she made dying declaration — fit case in which the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 1998)
Arvind Singh Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 4/26/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Dying Declaration — Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 304B, 498a/34 r/w 120B — conviction and sentence under — High Court converted husband’s charge of 304B to 302 — challenged — conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of the mother to whom the deceased was supposed to have made the declaration — held not worth acceptance — High Court fell in error in such acceptance — evidence is not sufficient enough to reach an irresistible conclusion of the involvement of the husband as the murderer or even being charged with an offence under Section 304B — conviction and sentence set aside — appeal allowed — appellant acquitted.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 1998 (with Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1999))
Satvir Singh and others Appellants with Tejinder Pal Kaur Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another Respondents, decided on 9/27/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 r/w Sections 116, 498a and 511 r/w Section 304B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — section 2 — dowry — definition of — dearth of evidence to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment connected with the demand for dowry, soon before the attempt to commit suicide by running in front of a running train — conviction under section 498a upheld.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1995)
Gananath Pattnaik Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent, decided on 2/6/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Section 498a – conviction and sentence under — even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case — held the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt — appeal allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1996)
Girdhar Shankar Tawade Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/24/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 498a and 306 — maintainability of a charge under Section 498 (A) of the Code by reason of an order of acquittal under Section 306 of the Code — held acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record — appeal allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 1995 (With Crl.A. Nos. 1458-1459 of 1995))
K. Prema S. Rao and another Appellants with State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others Respondents with Yadla Ranga Rao and another Respondents, decided on 10/25/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — sections 304B, 306 and 498a — dowry death — cruelty — conviction and sentence under section 498a — appeal preferred by parents of deceased seeking conviction of accused u/s. 304B, IPC — omission to frame charge u/s. 306 — although a charge specifically under Section 306 IPC was not framed but all facts and ingredients constituting that offence were mentioned in the Statement of Charges framed under section 494A and Section 304B of IPC — held same facts and evidence on which accused No.1 was charged under Section 498a and Section 304B, the accused can be convicted and sentenced under Section 306 IPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2002)
Sadhu Ram and another Appellants Vs. The State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/10/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 498a, 302 and 201 — conviction and sentence under — it is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration — held no evidence to corroborate testimony of Mala Ram, therefore, it is not safe to base a conviction on the testimony of such a witness — appellants acquitted — appeal allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2002)
Hira Lal and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi Respondent, decided on 7/25/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 304B, 306 and 498a – dowry death — a conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the ‘death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances’ — sufficient materials to convict the accused-appellants in terms of Section 306 IPC along with Section 498a IPC — unfortunate that the High Court failed to notice that the minimum sentence for offence punishable under Section 304B is seven years in terms of sub-section (2) thereof.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 2002)
Kaliyaperumal and Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 8/27/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498a – conviction challenged before the High Court — High Court only reduced the sentence from nine years to seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC but confirmed the sentence five years as imposed in respect of offences punishable under Section 498a – the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced in respect of offence under Section 304B — the appellant-Kaliyaperumal has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Section 304B and 498a. As the High Court has awarded the minimum punishment prescribed no interference with the sentences is called for. So far as appellant no. 2 Muthulakshmi is concerned, there is inadequacy of material to attract culpability under Section 304B. But Section 498a IPC is clearly attracted to her case — the appeal is allowed so far as her conviction under Section 304B IPC is concerned, but stands dismissed so far as it relates to offence punishable under Section 498aIPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003)
Bharat Chaudhary and another Appellants Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on10/8/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code — Section 438 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 504, 498a and 406 — Dowry Prohibition Act — Sections 3/4 — accused of — application for grant of anticipatory bail — rejected by the High Court — order under challenge — anticipatory bail granted — no restriction on the power of the courts empowered to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. — the duration of anticipation bail should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period — judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court.
(Case/Appeal No: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 240 of 2003 etc. (Crl. Misc. Petition No. 9841 of 2003))
Smt. Swati Verma Petitioner Vs. Rajan Verma and others Respondents, decided on 11/11/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act — Section 13(B) — decree of divorce — granting of — report for offences under Section 498a and 406 IPC lodged — marriage broken irretrievably — with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India — application for divorce granted.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2003)
Kamalkar Nandram Bhavsar and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharshtra Respondent, decided on11/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498a read with Section 34 — charged under — acquittal — High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- — since there is an illegality which vitiates the sentence an opportunity should be given to the accused persons of being heard before awarding the sentence, hence, on that ground, viz. on the ground of hearing the appellants on the question of sentence alone remanded the matter back to the trial court for giving an opportunity to the accused to make a representation regarding the sentence proposed — sentence reduced to 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- — 80% of the fine amount, if realised, should be paid to the parents of the victim girl as compensation.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.431 of 1997)
Yasosha and Anr. Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent, decided on 2/4/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498a, 304B and 201 — conviction confirmed — the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants — conviction and sentence affirmed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2004)
Biman Chatterjee Appellant Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and another Respondents, decided on 2/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a – complaint under — grant of bail on the assurance of compromise — cancellation of bail — the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise –no compromise — non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail — what the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code — having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 1997)
Ashok Vishnu Davare Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 2/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — conviction under — confirmed by High Court — the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and failed to notice the glaring improvements made by the witnesses in their evidence given before the court. These improvements in our opinion materially affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case hence it is not safe to base a conviction.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1998)
The State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Another Respondents, decided on3/17/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498a – conviction by trial court — legality of the judgment of DB of Andhra Pradesh High Court holding respondents not guilty questioned by State of Andhra Pradesh — in view of the fact that the death occurred within the very few months of the marriage, and the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 that shortly before the deceased committed suicide, demand of dowry was made, the plea in untenable. The accusations clearly stand established so far as A-1, respondent no.1 is concerned. So far as accused A-3 is concerned, there is no evidence that he ever made any demand of dowry — custodial sentence of 7 years would meet the end of justice for respondent no.1- A-1.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999 (with Crl. A. No. 480 of 1999))
Dalbir Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. Respondent, decided on 4/8/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 304-B and 498a – trial under — in view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court rendered in Lakhjit Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab (1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173 and Sangarabonia Sreenu vs. State of A.P. 1997(5) SCC 348 these appeals have been directed to be placed for hearing before a three-Judge Bench — whether in a given case is it possible to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC if a charge for the said offence has not been framed against him — in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C., it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion — he is convicted under Section 306 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1998)
Sakatar Singh and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 4/13/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498a read with Section 34 — conviction under — the trial court committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants — there has been no application of mind by the High Court which is evident from a perusal of the judgment of the said court.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2004)
Muthu Kutty and another Appellants Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on11/19/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B — conviction under — the acceptability of alleged dying declaration in the instant case has to be considered. The dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it — there is no material to show that dying declaration was result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility — the Courts below have rightly relied upon the dying declaration — something unusual in the conclusion of the trial Court. After having accepted that the accused persons were responsible for setting the deceased ablaze, applied Section 304 Part B IPC and not Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court observed that the accused without knowing what they were doing at the relevant time poured kerosene and set fire on the deceased and in view of this situation Section 302 IPC was not applied and Section 304 B IPC was applied. The reasoning is clearly wrong — no prejudice is caused to the accused appellants as they were originally charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with Section 304-B IPC — the conviction as recorded and affirmed and the sentences imposed do not warrant any interference.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1274 of 2004)
Ruchi Agarwal Appellant Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others Respondents, decided on 11/5/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a, 323 and 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act — sections 3 and 4 — complaint under — appeal — the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents — it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue — proceedings quashed and appeals dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2004)
Satyajit Banerjee and others Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal and others Respondents, decided on11/23/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — trial under — acquittal — de novo trial ordered by High Court — direction for retrial should not be made in all or every case where acquittal of accused is for want of adequate or reliable evidence. In Best Bakery case, the first trial was found to be a farce and is described as ‘mock trial’. Therefore, the direction for retrial was in fact, for a real trial. Such extraordinary situation alone can justify the directions as made by this Court in the Best Bakery Case — even if a retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case. The trial Judge has to decide the case on the basis of the evidence already on record and the additional evidence which would be recorded on retrial — the trial Judge, after retrial, shall take a decision on the basis of the entire evidence on record and strictly in accordance with law, without in any manner, being influenced or inhibited by anything said on the evidence in the judgment of the High Court or this Court.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 1999)
State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Respondent, decided on 1/18/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201 and 498a and alternatively under section 304 B — charge under found guilty — even if the evidence in this regard is ignored, the remaining evidence on record clearly proves the complicity of the respondent in the murder of his wife Veena — Court dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal — no rational justification for the conclusion reached by the High Court. The High Court has misread the evidence on record and has completely ignored the relevant evidence on record which was accepted by the Trial Court — judgment of the trial court restored.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.938-939 of 1999)
State of Orissa Appellant Vs. Niranjan Mohapatra and Others Respondents, decided on 2/3/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Acquittal — appeal against — the appellants had been convicted by the trial court under Sections498a and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498a and 7 years under Section 304B IPC — the High Court by its impugned judgment and order has acquitted all of them of the charges levelled against them — so far as the allegations relating to the offence under Section 498a is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the respondents. The High Court has considered the evidence on record — so far as the offence under Section 304B is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that soon before the occurrence the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment. In the absence of any such evidence, conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained — the High Court has recorded the order of acquittal based on the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of such evidence.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 1999)
K.R. Soorachari Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 4/13/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a – Dowry Prohibition Act — Sections 3, 4 and 6 — appellant found guilty — the appellant is entitled to acquittal so far the charge under Section 498a IPC is concerned — the Trial Court concluded that except the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 there was no other evidence on record to show that three days after the marriage negotiations PW-1 had sent Rs.10,000/- through his wife and PW-7 to be paid to the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that neither there was any demand for dowry nor was any amount paid to the appellant by way of dowry — the High Court found that the reasoning of the Trial Court was unsustainable — The finding recorded by the Trial Court in our view completely ignores the cogent and reliable evidence on record which proves the case of the prosecution that dowry was demanded and paid. Such a finding ignoring relevant evidence can not be sustained even in an appeal against acquittal — the conviction of the appellant under the Dowry Prohibition Act is fully justified.
(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No.141 of 2005)
Sushil Kumar Sharma Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Others Respondents, decided on 7/19/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a – cruelty — petition to declare Section 498a pertaining to cruelty on woman by husband and relatives as unconstitutional to stop victimization of innocent persons by unscrupulous persons making false accusations — held object of the provision is prevention of dowry menace — mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidated a Legislation — investigating agencies should make efforts so that an innocent persons is not made to suffer on account of baseless and malicious allegations.
(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2004)
Naveen Kohli Appellant Vs. Neelu Kohli Respondent, decided on 3/21/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Hindu, Marriage Act, 1955 — petition under for divorce — marriage totally dead — total disappearance of substratum in the marriage — the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Court would like to recommended the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1619 of 2005)
Rajendra & Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 7/27/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 302 read with Section 34 — conviction and sentence affirmed by the High Court — the two written dying declarations and the one oral dying declaration are consistent — no reason to discard the dying declarations which have been relied upon by the Trial Court as well as the High Court — Court does not attach much weight to the fact that the second dying declaration is not recorded by a Magistrate, and that it has been recorded by a person nominated by the Tehsildar to record dying declarations which in normal course is the duty of an Executive Magistrate — record consistent and all the evidence points to the guilt of the accused.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2006)
Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents,decided on 10/13/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498a and 34 — commission of the offence under — addition of the charge under Section 304B — it would be proper for the Trial Court to defer the question of framing charge under Section 304B after examination of doctor.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 2005)
Surender Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 11/22/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 306/34 — charge under — it has come in evidence that Surender gave beating to Pushpa to such an extent that she became unable even to walk — a young pregnant woman having a child in the womb would not ordinarily commit suicide unless she was compelled to do so — she would not have felt depressed if she had not been harassed on account of demand for dowry — both the courts below have held against the accused and this Court fully agrees with the reasoning given in the judgment by the courts below.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.223 of 2007)
Manjunath Chennabasapa Madalli Petitioner Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 2/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 302 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgement rendered by DB of Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal piled by the appellant — appellant found guilty under sections 498-A and 302 by the trial court — High Court set a side the conviction under sections 498a, but maintained the conviction under section 302IPC — the only circumstance which was highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court was that there was unnatural death and additionally the so called dying declaration — mere fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance against the accused particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable conviction set aside.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2006)
Bandu Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/9/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a — conviction under — on appeal, High Court set aside the conviction under section 498a, held him guilty under Section 302 — appeal — no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case as it is consistent with the medical evidence.
(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2007)
Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent, decided on3/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — Section 304B read with Section 498a/34 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition, Act, 1961 — appellants faced trial and convicted under — DB of Calcutta High Court modified the sentence but dismissed the appeal — legality of the judgment questioned — if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under “dowry death” and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives — there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry — mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2007)
Laxman Anaji Dhundale & another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/4/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34 and 498 A — the appellants who are the parents of accused No. 1 Rajendra, are accused Nos. 2 & 3 in this case. The trial court convicted them along with accused No. 1 under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. They were also found guilty under Sections 498a/34 IPC and were sentenced to three years’ R.I. and also a fine — whether the guilt of the appellants, who are the parents of Rajendra, is proved beyond reasonable doubt — direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case. However, in order to bring home the charge of common intention the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34. In the present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was such a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in question. Hence, in our opinion, the charge under Section 34 IPC has not been established — the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants and hence this appeal has to be allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2006)
Dnyaneshwar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/20/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markendey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — section 302 and 498a – the learned trial Judge held the appellant as also accused Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of commission of offences under Section 302 as well as under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code — on appeal to the High Court, High Court found the appellant guilty — the ante-mortem injuries clearly go to show that she had been done to death. Only because P.W.9- Dr. Ravindra failed to notice some injuries on her neck so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that the death was caused by asphyxia, court is of the opinion that the appellant in a case of this nature cannot take benefit thereof.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2007)
Gajanand Agarwal Petitioner Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. With Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2007 Respondents, decided on 4/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Bail — granting of — the offences indicated were punishable under Sections 498a, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — the reasoning given by the High Court that only the family members earlier did not lodge reports and, therefore, prima facie throws doubt about alleged torture, is another conclusion which was not required to be given while dealing with the bail application — the High Court has virtually written an order of acquittal by commenting on the evidentiary value of evidence on record. This is impermissible. Only broad features of the case are to be noted. Elaborate analysis of the evidence is to be avoided — the impugned orders of the High Court are indefensible and are set aside.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2006)
Dayal Singh Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/3/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498a and 302 — Conviction Under — appeal to High Court dismissed — appeal by special leave — dying declaration — value — the charge against the appellant is fully established from the evidence on record and there is absolutely no ground to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge and also by the High Court.
(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007)
Ananda Mohan Sen and Anr. Appellants Vs. Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007, decided on 5/16/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 306 — Conviction and Sentence by DB affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan — Sentence under Section 306 modified by High Court in case of appellant No.1 reducing the sentence from 5 yrs. to 3 yrs. — whether a case for conviction under Section 306 IP has been made out. It is no doubt true that for arriving at such a conclusion, the prosecution must , inter alia, establish that the deceased committed suicide and she had been subject to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498a IPC — it is not a case where interference with the impugned judgment is called for.
(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1203 of 2006)
Sukhram Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondents, decided on 8/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201, 304 B, 498a and 34 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 222, 464(2)(a) — High Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Appeal by appellant A-2 — Supreme Court held that no charge for offence punishable under Section 302 was framed against appellant A-2 — Section 222, Criminal Procedure Code had no application in facts as offences under the said Sections are vastly different — High Court did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 462(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code — High Court not justified in convicting Appellant A-2 under S.302, IPC — prosecution failed to establish the existence of a motive — no established circumstance to complete the chain to bring the offence under section 201 IPC — prosecution also failed to establish that conduct of appellant — both at time of occurrence and immediately thereafter — is consistent with hypothesis of his guilt — Order of High Court set aside — Appeal of appellant A-2 allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
M. Srinivasulu Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 9/10/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. D.K. Jain .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304 B and 498 A — conviction under — upheld by High Court — challenged — by the impugned judgment conviction recorded in respect of co-accused Laxmi was set aside and she was directed to be acquitted — in fact there is no allegation of any harassment due to dowry. What the trial court and the High Court appears to have done is to pick up one line from one place and another from another place and conclude that there was demand of dowry. Reading of the letters in the entirety show that there was, in fact, no mention of any demand for dowry. Therefore the conviction in terms of Section 498a and Section 304B cannot be maintained. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1612 of 2005)
Kishan Singh & Another Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 315 — conviction under — the High Court again examined the evidence on record, heard the arguments of the parties and considered the reasons recorded and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. It held that as far as accused Nos. 3 and 4, parents-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari were concerned, the trial Court was fully justified in convicting both of them for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC. Accordingly, their conviction as well as order of sentence was maintained — as to accused No.1-Manmohan Singh-husband, however, the High Court held that from the evidence, it was not proved that he was responsible for committing an offence punishable under Section 498a, IPC. The Court observed that he was serving in Indian Army and was occasionally attending matrimonial home after taking leave. There was no sufficient evidence of demand of dowry by accused No. 1. The trial Court, hence, was not right in convicting him under Section 498a, IPC. He was, therefore, ordered to be acquitted — the order convicting accused Nos. 3 and 4, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari under Sections 304B and 315, IPC recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is challenged in the present appeal — both the Courts were wholly right and fully justified in recording an order of conviction and in imposing sentence on appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 4 — there was no occasion for the trial Court to go to the extent of describing the evidence of PW4-Gopal Singh to be false. Even if it is conceded that in the light of other evidence on record, the Court was not convinced as to the demand of dowry by accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh, 10/12 days prior to the incident , the Court could have acquitted accused No.1 on that ground — it was certainly not a case of making scathing remarks against the witness.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2001)
Devi Lal Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B read with section 498a — charge under — section 113A of the Act relates to offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Code, whereas Section 113B relates to Section 304-B thereof. Whereas in terms of Section 113A of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in terms of Section 113B, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subject by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry — the question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are : (1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death — evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggest that Pushpa had all along been subjected to harassment or cruelty only on the ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage. For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand of any particular item should have been made — no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2007)
Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another Respondents,decided on 12/13/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1868 — sections 498a and 406 read with section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act — proceedings under — petition under section 482 for quashment of proceedings pending in appeal against the order under — marriage disolved remarried — as on today a period of almost nine years has elapsed of the marriage of appellant No.1 and Shireesha Bhavani and seven years from her second marriage. Therefore, at this belated stage, there does not appear to be any justification for continuation of the proceedings.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2007)
Onkar Nath Mishra & others Appellants Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & others Respondents, decided on12/14/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1868 — section 498a and 406/34 — trial under — the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out — section 498a I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, charge under Section 498a I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned — the trial court shall now proceed with the trial untrammeled by any observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2006)
Vikas & others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 1/21/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302, 342 read with section 34 — conviction under — all the three accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 302 and 342 read with Section 34, IPC. For an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, the accused were ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each — the High Court held that since it was not the case of the prosecution that Rekha was driven to death by committing suicide due to demand of dowry, it could not be said that the offence was established. All the accused persons were, therefore, acquitted of offence punishable under Section 498a read with Section 34, IPC — both the courts were wholly right and fully justified in relying upon two dying declarations recorded by (i) PW 5 Ramchandra, Special Judicial Magistrate on May 17, 2001 — and in discarding evidence of PW 1 Laxman, father of victim Rekha and PW2 Manohar, Panch — no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2008)
Sunita Jain Appellant Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain & others Respondents, decided on 1/25/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Criminal Proceedings — quashing — appeal is against the judgment and order allowing the application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. — the High Court was wrong in quashing the proceedings — it is clear that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as also against other accused for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 342 and 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court satisfied that prima facie case was made out and accordingly charges were framed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as against other accused. In a petition challenging that action, the High Court partly allowed the petition vide its order dated October 22, 1997 and quashed charges against brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant herein but upheld the order of framing of charge against the remaining respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 — all the Courts including this Court were of the view that there was prima facie case for framing of charge against the respondents herein. It appears that thereafter the parties tried for amicable settlement of the matter again — the order impugned in the present appeal is thus clearly illegal, improper, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.
(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2003 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2008)
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel with Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and another Appellants Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others with State of Gujarat and another Respondents, decided on 3/14/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 406 and 114 — complaint petition filed — appellants granted bail subject to the condition that they would not leave India without permission of the Court — application for cancellation a bail filed — on an application filed by the 3rd respondent on 24th April, 1998 the husband of the appellant was declared an absconder and a public proclamation was issued in terms of Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching her properties if she did not present before the Learned Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication — on their failure to remain present within a period of 30 days their properties were subjected to order of attachment under Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 5th January, 2004 the District Magistrate was asked by the Leaned Metropolitan Magistrate to take further action in terms of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by holding a public auction of the said properties. In the said order it was wrongly sated that the properties belonged to the appellants and husband of the 3rd respondent, whereas in fact Appellant No.1 alone was the owner thereof — appellant and her husband returned to India. They filed an application for cancellation of the said Standing Warrants — Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai is an Advocate. She filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws. She initially filed a Complaint Petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as Case No.1662 of 1996. It was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. It has since been dismissed for default. She initiated another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn. Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another, being Case No.47 of 1996 under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending. Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants — gross injustice has been caused to the appellant. She did not deserve such harsh treatments at the hands of the High Court. Respondent No.3 speaks of her own human rights, forgetting the human rights of the appellant, far less the funadamental right of life and liberty conferred on an accused in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India — the right of property is no longer a fundamental right. But still it is a constitutional right. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right. The procedures laid down for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with — the interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2008)
Rekha Patel Appellant Vs. Pankaj Verma and others Respondents, decided on 3/3/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 226 — petition under — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution — complaint filed by Appellant under — sections 498a, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a writ petition for quashing the F.I.R. and for stay of arrest pending the disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 1.11.2006. By the impugned order dated 7.11.2006 the High Court declined to accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the respondents — presently Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to the State of U.P. Even otherwise, as noted in Adri Dharan Das’s case (supra), after surrender of accused and rejection of his bail application, the protection of the nature granted by the High Court cannot be given — the respondents had moved for bail and have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned — this Court declines to interfere in the appeal; but have considered it necessary to indicate the correct parameters so that the mistake committed by the High Court is not repeated.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2008)
Bhura Ram and others Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan & another Respondents, decided on 4/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 156(3) — complaint under for offences under sections498a, 406 and 147 of IPC — jurisdiction — cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed — the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 4247 of 2007)
Sayeeda Farhana Shamim Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & another Respondents, decided on 5/16/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 32, 406 and 498a and Prevention of Dowry Act — section 3 and 4 — complaint under — the power of the Magistrate should not be fettered either under Section 244 or under sub-section (6) of Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. and full latitude should be given to the Magistrate to exercise the discretion to entertain a supplementary list — the view taken by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court cannot be sustained and consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2006 is set aside and it is for the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur to examine the remaining witnesses from the supplementary list given by the complainant and then to proceed according to law.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2008)
M.Saravana Porselvi Appellant Vs. A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & others Respondents, decided on5/27/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — section 13(1)(e) — petition under — customary divorce — registered — permanent alimony received by the wife — there does not exist any period of limitation in respect of an offence under Section 494, as the maximum period of punishment which can be imposed therefor is seven years — the customary divorce may be legal or illegal. The fact that such an agreement had been entered into or the appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of permanent alimony, however, stands admitted. The document is a registered one. Appellant being in the legal profession must be held to be aware of the legal implication thereof. If the contents of the said agreement are taken to be correct, indisputably the parties had been living separately for more than ten years. How then a case under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have made out and that too at such a distant point of time is the question, particularly in view of the bar of limitation as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise it is unbelievable that the appellant was really harassed by her husband or her in-laws — a criminal prosecution shall not lie. It was initiated mala fide. Thus, if it is allowed to continue, the same shall be an abuse of the process of court.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2008)
Narayanamurthy Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka & another Respondents, decided on 5/13/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — sections 3, 4 and 6 — trial under — the learned trial Judge found the evidence of prosecution witnesses insufficient and lacking for holding A-1 and A-3 guilty of the offences alleged against them and, accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges — on appeal by the State, the Division Bench of the High Court convicted A-1 for offences under Sections498a and 304B of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304B, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498a, IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months — the evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court suffer from manifest error and improper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal of A-1 cannot be sustained — the considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to the involvement of A-1 in the death of Jagadeshwari is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution, hence, the High Court was in error in basing conviction of A-1 on weak and slender evidence appearing against him.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2003)
Rajbabu and another Appellants Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 7/24/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — sections 306 and 498a — conviction under — appeal — dismissal by High Court — the deceased was of the view point that her life has been spoiled by marrying Appellant No. 1. The letter reflects the attitude of the in-laws of the deceased towards the deceased. In the said letter there was no reference of any act or incident whereby the appellants were alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide — on such slender evidence, therefore, court is not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC — whether an offence is made out under section 498a of IPC. Though the letter allegedly written by the deceased mentions the fact that the attitude of the family was not good towards the deceased and she was not treated well but there is no mentioned about any of such incident — conviction under Sections 306 and 498a of the IPC passed against the appellant No. 2 set aside and this court acquits her granting her benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed in so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2003)
Dinesh Seth Appellant Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Respondent, decided on 8/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B and 498a — appeal directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court whereby the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code — but was convicted under Section 498a IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment — an offence under Section498a IPC is made out if the woman is subjected to physical assault, humiliation, harassment and mental torture — even though the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish charge under Section 304 or 306 IPC, conviction under Section 498a IPC can be upheld because the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellant.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2001)
B. Venkat Swamy Appellant Vs. Vijaya Nehru and another Respondents, decided on 8/25/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 302 — acquittal under — challenged — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of respondent no.1 who was convicted for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498a and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — respondent and his mother faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498a IPC. In addition, respondent-accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, found that the accusations against A2 i.e. mother of the respondent – accused were not established and she was acquitted of the charges. However, respondent-accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498a, 302 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act — the examination in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. appears to have been done as an empty formality. The incriminating materials were not put to him. Though the High Court has not dealt with question of applicability of Section 498 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, but the evidence adduced does not establish the accusations — there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2001)
Chattar Singh and another Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 8/26/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — section 302, 498a and 201— conviction under — appellant-Mange Ram was convicted for offence punishable under Section 498a IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court as also the sentences for both the appellants — after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility — the extra judicial confession before PW-10 which has been relied upon by both the trial Court and the High Court cannot be lost sight of — the conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, considering the age of A-2 the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which is nearly one year so far as A-2 is concerned. Except the modification of sentence so far as A-2 is concerned the appeal is dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1453 of 2003)
State of A.P. Appellant Vs. Guvva Satyanarayana Respondent, decided on 9/24/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — conviction under — sentenced to file and two years — the High Court found that the charge in respect of Section 302 IPC rests on dying declaration purportedly to have been made by the deceased at 5.40 a.m. on 12.4.1994. Offence had taken place on 11.4.1994 at 9 p.m. The High Court found that the accusations so far as Section 302 IPC cannot be established and the dying declaration was not free from suspicion. However, the charge relatable to Section 498a was held to have been proved. For the same, sentence of two years RI imprisonment enhanced to three years RI — the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2001)
Balwant Singh and others Appellants Vs. State of H.P. Respondent, decided on 9/29/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding each of the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while setting aside the conviction and the sentence imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC — challenged in this appeal — there is no material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-law of the deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted of the charge. So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the accusations have been established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the documentary evidence and the exhibited letters and the convictions recorded so far as they are concerned cannot be faulted — the High Court has imposed sentence of one year. Considering the age of the father-in-law and mother-in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence already undergone by them while upholding the conviction the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal stands dismissed so far as A-2 is concerned.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2003)
Rajendran and another Appellants Vs. State Asstt. Commnr. of Police Law & Order Respondent, decided on12/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — originally, the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Section 498a and 304 B IPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of offence referred to Section 304 B and convicted them for offence under Section 498a IPC — the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498(A) — appeals — sections 304B and 498a, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498a gives the meaning of `cruelty’. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of `cruelty’ — section 498a IPC has two limbs. The first limb of Section498a provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. `Cruelty’ has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide — no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2008)
Vijay Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 12/1/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a 306 and 304B — trial under — Dowry death — daughter-in-law dies due to burns in matrimonial residence — trial court convicted mother-in-law and acquitted husband on a letter by the deceased daughter-in-law to her father, a prosecution witness — on appeal, High Court convicted the husband also based on the contents of the same letter — appeal — Supreme Court upheld trial court’s judgment.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Original Jurisdiction Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2007)
Rajesh Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 1/23/2009.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 406, 498a read with section 34 — transfer of Criminal case filed under — this transfer petition was posted before Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6.12.2008. The parties and their lawyers appeared and filed a joint petition stating that their disputes have been settled under the guidelines of the mediators who acted as Amicus Curiae — it is heartening to note that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have agreed to the terms. The transfer petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2009)
Varikuppal Srinivas Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 1/28/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 304B — conviction under — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 498a and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — the inevitable conclusion is that the trial court and the High Court have rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498a and 304B IPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on2/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a, 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498a IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- — original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on2/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a, 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498a IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- — original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2009)
Munish Bhasin and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and another Respondents, decided on 2/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 406 read with section 34 — complaint filed by wife for alleged commission of offences under against him and against his parents — High Court imposed the condition of payment of Rs. 12,500/- as maintenance for release on bail — assailed — the direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2006)
Pradeep Kumar Appellant/Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 3/31/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 304B — conviction under — upheld by the DB of Punjab & Haryana High Court — appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the second offence — appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 304(B) IPC and Section 498a IPC. Appellant alone was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — the only evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is that the accused and the deceased stayed in the same house. That is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts of the present case. However, the accusations related to Section 304 B IPC are satisfied — while setting aside the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, this Court upholds the conviction, so far as it relates to Section 304 B IPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2003)
Sundar Babu and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent(s), decided on 2/19/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — petition under — dismissal by single Judge — challenged in this appeal — the complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec.498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — the powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution — the appeal deserves to be allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Petition No. C.C.No. 385/2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, are quashed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2001)
Satish Kumar Batra and others Appellants/Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on4/1/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — conviction under — confirmed by additional sessions Judge — revision petition — dismissed by High Court — challenged in this appeal — six persons were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by Santosh Kumari — nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on bail pursuant to order dated 9.7.2001. Therefore, while upholding the conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the appellant nos.2 & 3 i.e. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations so far as they are concerned.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2007)
Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 4/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 read with section 34, 498a and 323 read with section 34 — conviction under upheld by DB — the case of the prosecution is based on certain circumstances and the Trial Court and High Court found those circumstances to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of the appellant. The High Court found that the accusations for dowry torture were not established and therefor, it acquitted the appellant of the charge relating to Section 498a of the I.P.C. — the judgment of the High Court is assailed on the ground that the circumstances highlighted by the Trial Court and the High Court do not form a complete chain in order to rule out the innocence of the accused and to unerringly point at the accused to be author of the crime.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2009)
Raman Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 4/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — trial under — the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur had directed acquittal of the appellant and two co-accused persons who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab in respect of co-accused Satish Kumar, Madan Lal and Asha while upholding the conviction of the present appellant — the High Court’s judgment is not only sketchy but also devoid of reasons. Various factors highlighted would go to show that the prosecution has squarely failed to establish the accusations so far as the appellant is concerned. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2001 with Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2001)
Kanti Lal with Arvind Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — conviction under — by the impugned order, the High Court while dismissing the appeal of Arvind Kumar and Kanti Lal and confirming their conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1993, has set aside the conviction of Sanwal Chand, Bhanwar Lal, Chetan Lal, Popat Lal and Smt. Bagtu and acquitted them of the charged offences — having regard to the entire evidence discussed above and having carefully and closely considered the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken by both the courts was reasonable and plausible — no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2004)
State of West Bengal Appellant Vs. Dipak Halder and another Respondents, decided on 5/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a read with section 34 and section 302 read with section 109 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the three appellants before it who are described hereinafter as accused no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Respondent No.1-Dipak Halder was married to one Rimu. Alleging that deceased Rimu was killed by respondent No.1 and that she was tortured, for non-fulfillment of dowry on demand, prosecution was launched. Charge under Section 498a read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against all the three accused persons. Charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against respondent No.1, Dipak Halder while charge under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC was framed against other two accused persons — the circumstances point to only one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused-respondent no.1. The judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2009)
Shaikh Maqsood Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a , 304B and 302 — trial under — trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498a and 304B while recording conviction under Section 302 IPC — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
D. Jayanna Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304 B and 498 A — conviction under — upheld by the DB of Karnataka High Court — challenged in this appeal — though the evidence appears to be sufficient to bring in application of Section 498a, there is definite inadequacy to attrach Section 304B IPC — there is sufficient evidence relating to demand of dowry though for the purpose of Section304B, the evidence is not sufficient.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 2006)
Subramaniam Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 5/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 302 — FIR under — the learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 14.11.2000 recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of appellant. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2005, the High Court while affirming the view of the trial court with regard to the order of acquittal of appellant of the charges under Section 498a of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, recorded a judgment of conviction and sentence against him under Section 302 of the IPC opining that its findings were unreasonable — in view of the admission made by the prosecution witnesses, the High Court, committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that he did not possess any land whatsoever — the High Court was considering a judgment of acquittal; it set aside a part of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. It could not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal if two views were possible. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or otherwise perverse. Circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, are not such which would lead to a definite conclusion that appellant and appellant alone had committed the offence. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court should have approached the case with some caution — the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2003)
State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Guntabai @ Bhagirathaibai and others Respondent(s), decided on4/21/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — three persons including the present respondent No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so far as present respondent No. 1 is concerned, and Sections 498a read with Section 34 IPC so far as all the three accused persons are concerned — judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2003)
State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Guntabai @ Bhagirathaibai and others Respondent(s), decided on4/21/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — three persons including the present respondent No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so far as present respondent No. 1 is concerned, and Sections 498a read with Section 34 IPC so far as all the three accused persons are concerned — judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2009)
Sasikumar Appellant Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 5/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 — conviction upheld by DB of Madras High Court while setting aside the conviction in terms of section 307 — appellant faced trial in the Court of Sessions, Vellore and was convicted in terms of Sections 302 and 307 IPC. He was acquitted of the charges relating to Section 498a IPC — judgment of DB challenged in this appeal — though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant — the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court placing reliance on the dying declaration cannot be faulted.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2003)
Manju Ram Kalita Appellant(s) Vs. State of Assam Respondent(s), decided on 5/29/2009.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 494 and 498a — conviction under— the High Court concurred with the finding of facts, recorded by the Trial Court dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup — it is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse — all the three courts below erred in not considering the case in correct perspective — in view of the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and punishment for the said offence awarded by the courts below are set aside. However, conviction and sentence under Section 494 IPC are maintained.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2004)
Shakson Belthissor Appellant Vs. State of Kerala and another Respondents, decided on 7/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: FIR and the charge under — petition for quashing the same — rejected by the Kerala High Court — appeal against the judgment — the High Court, however, without issuing any notice on the said petition rejected the petition holding that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the appellant — the scope and power of quashing a first information report and charge sheet under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive — on a reading of the FIR as also the charge sheet filed against the appellant no case under Section 498a is made out on the face of the record, and therefore, both the FIR as also the charge sheet are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC — the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009)
Raj Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 7/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 and 498a — conviction under — sentenced to imprisonment for life — the evidence on record shows that the deceased was totally unarmed. The appellant had inflicted blow with Polpat on the vital part of the body of the deceased, namely, head and inflicted the blow with such a great force that it resulted into her death. It is not the case of the appellant that the injury on the head of the deceased was accidental nor it is the case of the appellant that the blow was aimed on some other part of the body and because of supervening cause like sudden intervention or movement of the deceased the blow struck on the head. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it will have to be held that it was the intention of the appellant to cause that very injury which ultimately proved fatal — the offence committed by the appellant would be punishable as murder under Section 302 IPC and his case would not fall under the first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2009)
Subodh Kumar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on 7/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — bail granted to the appellant — cancelled — appeal — while considering the factors relevant for consideration of bail already granted vis-à-vis the factors relevant for rejection of bail, this Court pointed out that for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances will be relevant. The said observations were not intended to restrict the power of a superior court to cancel bail in appropriate cases on other grounds. In fact it is now well settled that if a superior court finds that the court granting bail had acted on irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to take note of any statutory bar to grant bail, or if there was manifest impropriety as for example failure to hear the public prosecutor/complainant where required, an order for cancellation of bail can in fact be made — while cancelling bail, the superior Court would be justified in considering the question whether irrelevant material were taken into consideration by the court granting bail — this Court is of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in confirming the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the bail which was arbitrarily granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2004)
Undavali Narayana Rao Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 7/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — conviction under by sessions Judge — affirmed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh — appeal — the High Court after appreciating the entire evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court — no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the courts below.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2009)
U. Suvetha Appellant Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another Respondents, decided on 5/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — whether the term “relative of husband of a woman” within the meaning of Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code should be given an extended meaning is the question involved herein.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2009)
Sukanti Moharana Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent, decided on 7/29/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — 304B and 498a — conviction under — setting aside — but conviction — under Section 302 — the High Court while upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also held that the dying declaration (Ext. 8) gets independent corroboration from the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her parents i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 as well as PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 — taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, there is no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
Arun Kumar Sharma Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 10/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with 34, 498a & 304-B read with Section 34 — murder for dowry and cruelty on account of demand of dowry — accused convicted by Trial Court for committing murder of his wife — witnesses not inspired any confidence — found in the post-mortem report that the deceased had multiple bruises over front of neck varying in sizes and there was extra blood in the soft tissues of neck with fracture of hyoid bone of trachea — FIR sent to Magistrate after delay of 5 days — Investigation Officer not examined neighbours — apathy on the part of the I.O. to examining the house created suspicion — not appeared any serious effort made on the part of the appellate Court to delve deep into the record of the case and the evidence of the witnesses — due to the slip-shod investigation the death of deceased to go unpunished — benefit of doubt given to the accused — conviction order of trial Court and the appellate Court set aside — appeal allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003)
Neelu Chopra and another Appellant(s) Vs. Bharti Respondent(s), decided on 10/7/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 498a read with Section 114 — misbehaviour and cruelty on the part of the husband and his relatives — complaint filed by the complainant/respondent against her husband and parents-in-law on account of unreasonable demand of dowry — all the allegations made against the husband who had expired — no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description — held that it did not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence — the order of High Court set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance quashed — complaint quashed — appeal allowed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2120 of 2009)
Suman Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 11/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a — on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 and statements recorded, the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet only against her in-laws but not against the appellant — application filed by the respondent No. 2 for issuing process against the appellant — Judicial Magistrate & Session Judge directed the appellant be summoned through bailable warrant — appellant challenged the revisional order as police not filed chargesheet against her — held that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence collected the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused — whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC — Yes — statements of complainant’s parents in corroboration with that of the complainant, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment — no interference in the orders of the Courts below — appeal dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1469 of 2008)
Govindappa and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A/34 and 302/34 — cruelty by the husband and his relatives and punishment of murder — conviction and sentence under — as per the prosecution, the appellants poured kerosene on the deceased and appellant No.2 set fire in the presence of the neighbours and ran away from the house — due to 100% burn injuries, the victim died — the High Court confirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the A-1, A-2 and A-4 while acquitted A-3 and A-5 of the charges levelled against them — appeal — whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants-accused A-1, A-2, and A-4 for offences punishable under Section 498a, read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC? — Yes — whether the sentence imposed upon the appellants-accused is justifiable? — Yes — whether the High Court is right in confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants? — Yes — prosecution witnesses narrated how the deceased Renuka was humiliated and harassed at the instance of the appellants — though A-3 and A-5 were implicated in the commission of offence but in the absence of further corroboration were rightly acquitted — evidence of PW-9 were found in full corroboration with the dying declaration — PW-12 recorded the dying declaration of Renuka and the same was recorded after ascertaining her condition from PW-7/Doctor — post-mortem report indicated the death due to shock as a result of 100% burn and also found smell of kerosene on deceased body — held no interference in the impugned orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1733 of 2008)
Uday Chakraborty and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent(s), decided on 7/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a/304B — cruelty against the married woman by her husband and his relatives/dowry death — conviction and sentence under — the couple has not even completed a period of two years of their marriage when it was alleged that because of dowry, the accused and other family members tortured the deceased/wife physically and mentally and forcibly burnt her — the learned Sessions Court found all the five accused persons guilty under Sections 498a/304B of IPC and sentenced them accordingly. However, the High Court acquitted two persons and convicted three persons/appellants for the offence — appeal — the prosecution examined 31 witnesses and the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record clearly showed that the appellants have been rightly found guilty of the offence by the High Court as the subsequent statements of different witnesses have fairly established on record that she was tortured and harassed for satisfying the demand of dowry — held that the offence under Sections 304B read with 498a of IPC has been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt — appeal dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1182-1184 of 2010)
Vijeta Gajra Appellant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Respondent, decided on 7/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 406 — FIR registered under — for troubling the complainant on account of the dowry demands and for the offence of criminal breach of trust as alleged in respect of the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain and earring set which the appellant had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone — this Court examined the ingredients of Section 498a and found that reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498a, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage, therefore, held that the appellant/foster sister of the complainant’s husband not to be tried for the offence under Section498a, IPC. However, this Court desist from quashing the FIR altogether in view of the allegations made under Section 406 but protected the interest of the appellant by directing that she would not be required to attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme necessity — appeal disposed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2010)
Amar Singh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent(s), decided on 8/3/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patniak(Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Cr. A – 1 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B — dowry death — conviction and sentence under — within 10 months of marriage, deceased was found dead in her in-laws house — deceased’s father lodged a written report that the deceased used to be harassed and humiliated in connection with demand of dowry — the trial court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life to the accused persons with concurrent sentence and fine. The High Court acquitted other accused and confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498a and 304B IPC — appeal — the appellant chose not to examine any defence witness to rebut the presumption of dowry death against him — the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased suffered 100% burns. PW-9/Doctor who performed the autopsy opined that the burns on the deceased were after strangulation and throttling — this court concluded that the statements made by the deceased before PW-4 and PW-5 that the appellant used to taunt the deceased in connection with demand of a Scooter or Rs.25,000/- within a couple of months before the death of the deceased are statements as to “the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death” — since there is no evidence as to the actual role played by the appellant in the death of the deceased, the impugned judgement of the High Court modified to the extent that sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant reduced to RI for 10 years — appeal partly allowed. Cr.A – 2 — acquittal — appeal against — the High Court viewed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the mother and brother-in-law of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt — this court held that a prosecution witness who merely uses the word “harassed” or “tortured” and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the Court in cases under Section 498a and 304B IPC — appeal dismissed.
(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1419-1420 of 2010)
Ravindra Tukaram Hiwale Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 8/2/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — cruelty against women by her husband and/or his relatives and abetment of suicide — the deceased suffered serious burn injuries in the kitchen of the house and ultimately died of those injuries. She made a dying declaration that she had a quarrel with her husband over the house-hold chores and over the feeding of the children and she had thereafter poured kerosene on herself and then burnt herself — the trial court convicted & sentenced the appellant to 1 year imprisonment u/sec. 498-A and to a sentence of 4 years u/sec. 306. The High Court enhanced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 306 IPC from four to six years — appeal — the trial court gave a positive finding that the incident was a spontaneous one arising out of a family quarrel in the morning — the sentence awarded by the High Court quashed and the judgement of the trial court confirmed — appeal allowed.

td p { margin-bottom: 0in; }p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

IPC 498a JUDGMENTS

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1386 of 1999)
Pawan Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 3/13/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 and 498a – conviction and sentence under — Evidence Act — Section 113(A) — dowry death — circumstances pointedly point out the accused as a guilty person as abettors — order of conviction cannot be interfered with — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2001)
Mohan Baitha and Ors. Appellants Vs. Mohan Baitha and Ors. Appellants, decided on 3/21/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal..
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 304B, 498a, 120B and 406 — offences under — Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 220 — accused contended that since the incident constituting the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC had taken place at Jahanaganj in the State of U.P., the Court at Bhagalpur lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the same — High Court relying on Section 220, Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that there appears to exist a continuity of action to attract sub-section (1) of section 220, therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Bhagalpur is ousted to try the offence under Section 304B — held no infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2000)
Uka Ram Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/10/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Dying declaration — Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 161 — Indian Evidence Act — Section 32 — Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 326 and 498a – conviction and sentence under — dying declaration — sole evidence upon which conviction is based — held despite knowing the fact that the deceased was a mental patient, the investigating agency did not take any precaution to ensure that the incident was suicidal or homicidal — the probability of the deceased committing suicide has not been eliminated; there also exist a doubt about the mental condition of the deceased at the time she made dying declaration — fit case in which the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 1998)
Arvind Singh Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 4/26/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Dying Declaration — Indian Penal Code — Sections 302, 304B, 498a/34 r/w 120B — conviction and sentence under — High Court converted husband’s charge of 304B to 302 — challenged — conviction based on uncorroborated testimony of the mother to whom the deceased was supposed to have made the declaration — held not worth acceptance — High Court fell in error in such acceptance — evidence is not sufficient enough to reach an irresistible conclusion of the involvement of the husband as the murderer or even being charged with an offence under Section 304B — conviction and sentence set aside — appeal allowed — appellant acquitted.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1319 of 1998 (with Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1999))
Satvir Singh and others Appellants with Tejinder Pal Kaur Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another Respondents, decided on 9/27/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 306 r/w Sections 116, 498a and 511 r/w Section 304B — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — section 2 — dowry — definition of — dearth of evidence to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment connected with the demand for dowry, soon before the attempt to commit suicide by running in front of a running train — conviction under section 498a upheld.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1995)
Gananath Pattnaik Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent, decided on 2/6/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Section 498a – conviction and sentence under — even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case — held the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1996)
Girdhar Shankar Tawade Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/24/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 498a and 306 — maintainability of a charge under Section 498 (A) of the Code by reason of an order of acquittal under Section 306 of the Code — held acquittal of a charge under Section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under Section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of Section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained. Presently, we have no such evidence available on record — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 1995 (With Crl.A. Nos. 1458-1459 of 1995))
K. Prema S. Rao and another Appellants with State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others Respondents with Yadla Ranga Rao and another Respondents, decided on 10/25/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — sections 304B, 306 and 498a — dowry death — cruelty — conviction and sentence under section 498a — appeal preferred by parents of deceased seeking conviction of accused u/s. 304B, IPC — omission to frame charge u/s. 306 — although a charge specifically under Section 306 IPC was not framed but all facts and ingredients constituting that offence were mentioned in the Statement of Charges framed under section 494A and Section 304B of IPC — held same facts and evidence on which accused No.1 was charged under Section 498a and Section 304B, the accused can be convicted and sentenced under Section 306 IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2002)
Sadhu Ram and another Appellants Vs. The State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/10/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 498a, 302 and 201 — conviction and sentence under — it is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case the court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration — held no evidence to corroborate testimony of Mala Ram, therefore, it is not safe to base a conviction on the testimony of such a witness — appellants acquitted — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2002)
Hira Lal and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi Respondent, decided on 7/25/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 304B, 306 and 498a – dowry death — a conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the ‘death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances’ — sufficient materials to convict the accused-appellants in terms of Section 306 IPC along with Section 498a IPC — unfortunate that the High Court failed to notice that the minimum sentence for offence punishable under Section 304B is seven years in terms of sub-section (2) thereof.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1358 of 2002)
Kaliyaperumal and Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 8/27/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498a – conviction challenged before the High Court — High Court only reduced the sentence from nine years to seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC but confirmed the sentence five years as imposed in respect of offences punishable under Section 498a – the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced in respect of offence under Section 304B — the appellant-Kaliyaperumal has been rightly convicted for offence punishable under Section 304B and 498a. As the High Court has awarded the minimum punishment prescribed no interference with the sentences is called for. So far as appellant no. 2 Muthulakshmi is concerned, there is inadequacy of material to attract culpability under Section 304B. But Section 498a IPC is clearly attracted to her case — the appeal is allowed so far as her conviction under Section 304B IPC is concerned, but stands dismissed so far as it relates to offence punishable under Section 498aIPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003)
Bharat Chaudhary and another Appellants Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on10/8/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code — Section 438 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 504, 498a and 406 — Dowry Prohibition Act — Sections 3/4 — accused of — application for grant of anticipatory bail — rejected by the High Court — order under challenge — anticipatory bail granted — no restriction on the power of the courts empowered to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. — the duration of anticipation bail should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period — judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 240 of 2003 etc. (Crl. Misc. Petition No. 9841 of 2003))
Smt. Swati Verma Petitioner Vs. Rajan Verma and others Respondents, decided on 11/11/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act — Section 13(B) — decree of divorce — granting of — report for offences under Section 498a and 406 IPC lodged — marriage broken irretrievably — with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India — application for divorce granted.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2003)
Kamalkar Nandram Bhavsar and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharshtra Respondent, decided on11/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498a read with Section 34 — charged under — acquittal — High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- — since there is an illegality which vitiates the sentence an opportunity should be given to the accused persons of being heard before awarding the sentence, hence, on that ground, viz. on the ground of hearing the appellants on the question of sentence alone remanded the matter back to the trial court for giving an opportunity to the accused to make a representation regarding the sentence proposed — sentence reduced to 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- — 80% of the fine amount, if realised, should be paid to the parents of the victim girl as compensation.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.431 of 1997)
Yasosha and Anr. Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent, decided on 2/4/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498a, 304B and 201 — conviction confirmed — the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants — conviction and sentence affirmed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2004)
Biman Chatterjee Appellant Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and another Respondents, decided on 2/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a – complaint under — grant of bail on the assurance of compromise — cancellation of bail — the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise –no compromise — non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail — what the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code — having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 1997)
Ashok Vishnu Davare Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 2/10/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — conviction under — confirmed by High Court — the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and failed to notice the glaring improvements made by the witnesses in their evidence given before the court. These improvements in our opinion materially affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case hence it is not safe to base a conviction.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 1998)
The State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant Vs. Raj Gopal Asawa and Another Respondents, decided on3/17/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B and 498a – conviction by trial court — legality of the judgment of DB of Andhra Pradesh High Court holding respondents not guilty questioned by State of Andhra Pradesh — in view of the fact that the death occurred within the very few months of the marriage, and the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 that shortly before the deceased committed suicide, demand of dowry was made, the plea in untenable. The accusations clearly stand established so far as A-1, respondent no.1 is concerned. So far as accused A-3 is concerned, there is no evidence that he ever made any demand of dowry — custodial sentence of 7 years would meet the end of justice for respondent no.1- A-1.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1999 (with Crl. A. No. 480 of 1999))
Dalbir Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. Respondent, decided on 4/8/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR Lakshmanan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 304-B and 498a – trial under — in view of conflict of opinion in two decisions of this Court rendered in Lakhjit Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab (1994 Supp. (1) SCC 173 and Sangarabonia Sreenu vs. State of A.P. 1997(5) SCC 348 these appeals have been directed to be placed for hearing before a three-Judge Bench — whether in a given case is it possible to convict the accused under Section 306 IPC if a charge for the said offence has not been framed against him — in view of Section 464 Cr.P.C., it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact occasion — he is convicted under Section 306 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1998)
Sakatar Singh and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 4/13/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306 and 498a read with Section 34 — conviction under — the trial court committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against the appellants — there has been no application of mind by the High Court which is evident from a perusal of the judgment of the said court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2004)
Muthu Kutty and another Appellants Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on11/19/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B — conviction under — the acceptability of alleged dying declaration in the instant case has to be considered. The dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it — there is no material to show that dying declaration was result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility — the Courts below have rightly relied upon the dying declaration — something unusual in the conclusion of the trial Court. After having accepted that the accused persons were responsible for setting the deceased ablaze, applied Section 304 Part B IPC and not Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court observed that the accused without knowing what they were doing at the relevant time poured kerosene and set fire on the deceased and in view of this situation Section 302 IPC was not applied and Section 304 B IPC was applied. The reasoning is clearly wrong — no prejudice is caused to the accused appellants as they were originally charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC along with Section 304-B IPC — the conviction as recorded and affirmed and the sentences imposed do not warrant any interference.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1274 of 2004)
Ruchi Agarwal Appellant Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others Respondents, decided on 11/5/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a, 323 and 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act — sections 3 and 4 — complaint under — appeal — the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents — it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue — proceedings quashed and appeals dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2004)
Satyajit Banerjee and others Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal and others Respondents, decided on11/23/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — trial under — acquittal — de novo trial ordered by High Court — direction for retrial should not be made in all or every case where acquittal of accused is for want of adequate or reliable evidence. In Best Bakery case, the first trial was found to be a farce and is described as ‘mock trial’. Therefore, the direction for retrial was in fact, for a real trial. Such extraordinary situation alone can justify the directions as made by this Court in the Best Bakery Case — even if a retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case. The trial Judge has to decide the case on the basis of the evidence already on record and the additional evidence which would be recorded on retrial — the trial Judge, after retrial, shall take a decision on the basis of the entire evidence on record and strictly in accordance with law, without in any manner, being influenced or inhibited by anything said on the evidence in the judgment of the High Court or this Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 1999)
State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Respondent, decided on 1/18/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201 and 498a and alternatively under section 304 B — charge under found guilty — even if the evidence in this regard is ignored, the remaining evidence on record clearly proves the complicity of the respondent in the murder of his wife Veena — Court dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal — no rational justification for the conclusion reached by the High Court. The High Court has misread the evidence on record and has completely ignored the relevant evidence on record which was accepted by the Trial Court — judgment of the trial court restored.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.938-939 of 1999)
State of Orissa Appellant Vs. Niranjan Mohapatra and Others Respondents, decided on 2/3/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Acquittal — appeal against — the appellants had been convicted by the trial court under Sections498a and 304B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498a and 7 years under Section 304B IPC — the High Court by its impugned judgment and order has acquitted all of them of the charges levelled against them — so far as the allegations relating to the offence under Section 498a is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against the respondents. The High Court has considered the evidence on record — so far as the offence under Section 304B is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that soon before the occurrence the deceased was subjected to torture and harassment. In the absence of any such evidence, conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained — the High Court has recorded the order of acquittal based on the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of such evidence.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 1999)
K.R. Soorachari Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 4/13/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a – Dowry Prohibition Act — Sections 3, 4 and 6 — appellant found guilty — the appellant is entitled to acquittal so far the charge under Section 498a IPC is concerned — the Trial Court concluded that except the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 there was no other evidence on record to show that three days after the marriage negotiations PW-1 had sent Rs.10,000/- through his wife and PW-7 to be paid to the appellant. In view of these circumstances, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that neither there was any demand for dowry nor was any amount paid to the appellant by way of dowry — the High Court found that the reasoning of the Trial Court was unsustainable — The finding recorded by the Trial Court in our view completely ignores the cogent and reliable evidence on record which proves the case of the prosecution that dowry was demanded and paid. Such a finding ignoring relevant evidence can not be sustained even in an appeal against acquittal — the conviction of the appellant under the Dowry Prohibition Act is fully justified.

(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No.141 of 2005)
Sushil Kumar Sharma Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Others Respondents, decided on 7/19/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a – cruelty — petition to declare Section 498a pertaining to cruelty on woman by husband and relatives as unconstitutional to stop victimization of innocent persons by unscrupulous persons making false accusations — held object of the provision is prevention of dowry menace — mere possibility of abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidated a Legislation — investigating agencies should make efforts so that an innocent persons is not made to suffer on account of baseless and malicious allegations.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2004)
Naveen Kohli Appellant Vs. Neelu Kohli Respondent, decided on 3/21/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Hindu, Marriage Act, 1955 — petition under for divorce — marriage totally dead — total disappearance of substratum in the marriage — the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Court would like to recommended the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1619 of 2005)
Rajendra & Ors. Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 7/27/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 302 read with Section 34 — conviction and sentence affirmed by the High Court — the two written dying declarations and the one oral dying declaration are consistent — no reason to discard the dying declarations which have been relied upon by the Trial Court as well as the High Court — Court does not attach much weight to the fact that the second dying declaration is not recorded by a Magistrate, and that it has been recorded by a person nominated by the Tehsildar to record dying declarations which in normal course is the duty of an Executive Magistrate — record consistent and all the evidence points to the guilt of the accused.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2006)
Ishwarchand Amichand Govadia and others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Respondents,decided on 10/13/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498a and 34 — commission of the offence under — addition of the charge under Section 304B — it would be proper for the Trial Court to defer the question of framing charge under Section 304B after examination of doctor.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1262 of 2005)
Surender Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 11/22/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 306/34 — charge under — it has come in evidence that Surender gave beating to Pushpa to such an extent that she became unable even to walk — a young pregnant woman having a child in the womb would not ordinarily commit suicide unless she was compelled to do so — she would not have felt depressed if she had not been harassed on account of demand for dowry — both the courts below have held against the accused and this Court fully agrees with the reasoning given in the judgment by the courts below.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.223 of 2007)
Manjunath Chennabasapa Madalli Petitioner Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 2/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 302 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgement rendered by DB of Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal piled by the appellant — appellant found guilty under sections 498-A and 302 by the trial court — High Court set a side the conviction under sections 498a, but maintained the conviction under section 302IPC — the only circumstance which was highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court was that there was unnatural death and additionally the so called dying declaration — mere fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance against the accused particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable conviction set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2006)
Bandu Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/9/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a — conviction under — on appeal, High Court set aside the conviction under section 498a, held him guilty under Section 302 — appeal — no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case as it is consistent with the medical evidence.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2007)
Biswajit Halder @ Babu Halder and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent, decided on3/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — Section 304B read with Section 498a/34 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition, Act, 1961 — appellants faced trial and convicted under — DB of Calcutta High Court modified the sentence but dismissed the appeal — legality of the judgment questioned — if a married woman dies in an unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home within 7 years from her marriage and there are allegations of cruelty or harassment upon such married woman for or in connection with demand of dowry by the husband or relatives of the husband, the case would squarely come under “dowry death” and there shall be a presumption against the husband and the relatives — there is practically no evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry — mere evidence of cruelty and harassment is not sufficient to bring in application of Section 304B IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2007)
Laxman Anaji Dhundale & another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 4/4/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34 and 498 A — the appellants who are the parents of accused No. 1 Rajendra, are accused Nos. 2 & 3 in this case. The trial court convicted them along with accused No. 1 under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. They were also found guilty under Sections 498a/34 IPC and were sentenced to three years’ R.I. and also a fine — whether the guilt of the appellants, who are the parents of Rajendra, is proved beyond reasonable doubt — direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case. However, in order to bring home the charge of common intention the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34. In the present case there is no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was such a plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence in question. Hence, in our opinion, the charge under Section 34 IPC has not been established — the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants and hence this appeal has to be allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 653 of 2006)
Dnyaneshwar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/20/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markendey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — section 302 and 498a – the learned trial Judge held the appellant as also accused Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of commission of offences under Section 302 as well as under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code — on appeal to the High Court, High Court found the appellant guilty — the ante-mortem injuries clearly go to show that she had been done to death. Only because P.W.9- Dr. Ravindra failed to notice some injuries on her neck so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that the death was caused by asphyxia, court is of the opinion that the appellant in a case of this nature cannot take benefit thereof.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2007)
Gajanand Agarwal Petitioner Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. With Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2007 Respondents, decided on 4/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Bail — granting of — the offences indicated were punishable under Sections 498a, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — the reasoning given by the High Court that only the family members earlier did not lodge reports and, therefore, prima facie throws doubt about alleged torture, is another conclusion which was not required to be given while dealing with the bail application — the High Court has virtually written an order of acquittal by commenting on the evidentiary value of evidence on record. This is impermissible. Only broad features of the case are to be noted. Elaborate analysis of the evidence is to be avoided — the impugned orders of the High Court are indefensible and are set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2006)
Dayal Singh Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/3/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498a and 302 — Conviction Under — appeal to High Court dismissed — appeal by special leave — dying declaration — value — the charge against the appellant is fully established from the evidence on record and there is absolutely no ground to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge and also by the High Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007)
Ananda Mohan Sen and Anr. Appellants Vs. Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007, decided on 5/16/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 306 — Conviction and Sentence by DB affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan — Sentence under Section 306 modified by High Court in case of appellant No.1 reducing the sentence from 5 yrs. to 3 yrs. — whether a case for conviction under Section 306 IP has been made out. It is no doubt true that for arriving at such a conclusion, the prosecution must , inter alia, establish that the deceased committed suicide and she had been subject to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498a IPC — it is not a case where interference with the impugned judgment is called for.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1203 of 2006)
Sukhram Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondents, decided on 8/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 201, 304 B, 498a and 34 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 222, 464(2)(a) — High Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 — Appeal by appellant A-2 — Supreme Court held that no charge for offence punishable under Section 302 was framed against appellant A-2 — Section 222, Criminal Procedure Code had no application in facts as offences under the said Sections are vastly different — High Court did not follow the procedure laid down in Section 462(2)(a), Criminal Procedure Code — High Court not justified in convicting Appellant A-2 under S.302, IPC — prosecution failed to establish the existence of a motive — no established circumstance to complete the chain to bring the offence under section 201 IPC — prosecution also failed to establish that conduct of appellant — both at time of occurrence and immediately thereafter — is consistent with hypothesis of his guilt — Order of High Court set aside — Appeal of appellant A-2 allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
M. Srinivasulu Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 9/10/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. D.K. Jain .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304 B and 498 A — conviction under — upheld by High Court — challenged — by the impugned judgment conviction recorded in respect of co-accused Laxmi was set aside and she was directed to be acquitted — in fact there is no allegation of any harassment due to dowry. What the trial court and the High Court appears to have done is to pick up one line from one place and another from another place and conclude that there was demand of dowry. Reading of the letters in the entirety show that there was, in fact, no mention of any demand for dowry. Therefore the conviction in terms of Section 498a and Section 304B cannot be maintained. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1612 of 2005)
Kishan Singh & Another Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 315 — conviction under — the High Court again examined the evidence on record, heard the arguments of the parties and considered the reasons recorded and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. It held that as far as accused Nos. 3 and 4, parents-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari were concerned, the trial Court was fully justified in convicting both of them for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 315, IPC. Accordingly, their conviction as well as order of sentence was maintained — as to accused No.1-Manmohan Singh-husband, however, the High Court held that from the evidence, it was not proved that he was responsible for committing an offence punishable under Section 498a, IPC. The Court observed that he was serving in Indian Army and was occasionally attending matrimonial home after taking leave. There was no sufficient evidence of demand of dowry by accused No. 1. The trial Court, hence, was not right in convicting him under Section 498a, IPC. He was, therefore, ordered to be acquitted — the order convicting accused Nos. 3 and 4, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Reeta Kumari under Sections 304B and 315, IPC recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court is challenged in the present appeal — both the Courts were wholly right and fully justified in recording an order of conviction and in imposing sentence on appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 4 — there was no occasion for the trial Court to go to the extent of describing the evidence of PW4-Gopal Singh to be false. Even if it is conceded that in the light of other evidence on record, the Court was not convinced as to the demand of dowry by accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh, 10/12 days prior to the incident , the Court could have acquitted accused No.1 on that ground — it was certainly not a case of making scathing remarks against the witness.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2001)
Devi Lal Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B read with section 498a — charge under — section 113A of the Act relates to offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Code, whereas Section 113B relates to Section 304-B thereof. Whereas in terms of Section 113A of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, in terms of Section 113B, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subject by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry — the question, as to what are the ingredients of the provisions of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is no longer res integra. They are : (1) That the death of the woman was caused by any burns or bodily injury or in some circumstances which were not normal; (2) such death occurs within 7 years from the date of her marriage; (3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; (4) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (5) it is established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before her death — evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly suggest that Pushpa had all along been subjected to harassment or cruelty only on the ground that her father had not given enough dowry at the time of marriage. For proving the said fact, it was not necessary that demand of any particular item should have been made — no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2007)
Sanapareddy Maheedhar and another Appellants Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another Respondents,decided on 12/13/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1868 — sections 498a and 406 read with section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act — proceedings under — petition under section 482 for quashment of proceedings pending in appeal against the order under — marriage disolved remarried — as on today a period of almost nine years has elapsed of the marriage of appellant No.1 and Shireesha Bhavani and seven years from her second marriage. Therefore, at this belated stage, there does not appear to be any justification for continuation of the proceedings.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1716 of 2007)
Onkar Nath Mishra & others Appellants Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & others Respondents, decided on12/14/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1868 — section 498a and 406/34 — trial under — the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out — section 498a I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, charge under Section 498a I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned — the trial court shall now proceed with the trial untrammeled by any observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2006)
Vikas & others Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 1/21/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302, 342 read with section 34 — conviction under — all the three accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 302 and 342 read with Section 34, IPC. For an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, the accused were ordered to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each — the High Court held that since it was not the case of the prosecution that Rekha was driven to death by committing suicide due to demand of dowry, it could not be said that the offence was established. All the accused persons were, therefore, acquitted of offence punishable under Section 498a read with Section 34, IPC — both the courts were wholly right and fully justified in relying upon two dying declarations recorded by (i) PW 5 Ramchandra, Special Judicial Magistrate on May 17, 2001 — and in discarding evidence of PW 1 Laxman, father of victim Rekha and PW2 Manohar, Panch — no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2008)
Sunita Jain Appellant Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain & others Respondents, decided on 1/25/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Criminal Proceedings — quashing — appeal is against the judgment and order allowing the application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. — the High Court was wrong in quashing the proceedings — it is clear that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as also against other accused for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 342 and 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court satisfied that prima facie case was made out and accordingly charges were framed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as against other accused. In a petition challenging that action, the High Court partly allowed the petition vide its order dated October 22, 1997 and quashed charges against brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant herein but upheld the order of framing of charge against the remaining respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 3 — all the Courts including this Court were of the view that there was prima facie case for framing of charge against the respondents herein. It appears that thereafter the parties tried for amicable settlement of the matter again — the order impugned in the present appeal is thus clearly illegal, improper, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2003 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2008)
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel with Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and another Appellants Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others with State of Gujarat and another Respondents, decided on 3/14/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 406 and 114 — complaint petition filed — appellants granted bail subject to the condition that they would not leave India without permission of the Court — application for cancellation a bail filed — on an application filed by the 3rd respondent on 24th April, 1998 the husband of the appellant was declared an absconder and a public proclamation was issued in terms of Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching her properties if she did not present before the Learned Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication — on their failure to remain present within a period of 30 days their properties were subjected to order of attachment under Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 5th January, 2004 the District Magistrate was asked by the Leaned Metropolitan Magistrate to take further action in terms of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by holding a public auction of the said properties. In the said order it was wrongly sated that the properties belonged to the appellants and husband of the 3rd respondent, whereas in fact Appellant No.1 alone was the owner thereof — appellant and her husband returned to India. They filed an application for cancellation of the said Standing Warrants — Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai is an Advocate. She filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws. She initially filed a Complaint Petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as Case No.1662 of 1996. It was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. It has since been dismissed for default. She initiated another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn. Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No.2, his son and another, being Case No.47 of 1996 under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending. Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants — gross injustice has been caused to the appellant. She did not deserve such harsh treatments at the hands of the High Court. Respondent No.3 speaks of her own human rights, forgetting the human rights of the appellant, far less the funadamental right of life and liberty conferred on an accused in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India — the right of property is no longer a fundamental right. But still it is a constitutional right. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right. The procedures laid down for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with — the interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2008)
Rekha Patel Appellant Vs. Pankaj Verma and others Respondents, decided on 3/3/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 226 — petition under — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution — complaint filed by Appellant under — sections 498a, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a writ petition for quashing the F.I.R. and for stay of arrest pending the disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 1.11.2006. By the impugned order dated 7.11.2006 the High Court declined to accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the respondents — presently Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to the State of U.P. Even otherwise, as noted in Adri Dharan Das’s case (supra), after surrender of accused and rejection of his bail application, the protection of the nature granted by the High Court cannot be given — the respondents had moved for bail and have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned — this Court declines to interfere in the appeal; but have considered it necessary to indicate the correct parameters so that the mistake committed by the High Court is not repeated.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2008)
Bhura Ram and others Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan & another Respondents, decided on 4/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 156(3) — complaint under for offences under sections498a, 406 and 147 of IPC — jurisdiction — cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the court where the offence was committed, could not be tried by the court where no part of offence was committed — the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 4247 of 2007)
Sayeeda Farhana Shamim Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & another Respondents, decided on 5/16/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 32, 406 and 498a and Prevention of Dowry Act — section 3 and 4 — complaint under — the power of the Magistrate should not be fettered either under Section 244 or under sub-section (6) of Section 246 of the Cr.P.C. and full latitude should be given to the Magistrate to exercise the discretion to entertain a supplementary list — the view taken by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court cannot be sustained and consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2006 is set aside and it is for the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur to examine the remaining witnesses from the supplementary list given by the complainant and then to proceed according to law.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2008)
M.Saravana Porselvi Appellant Vs. A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & others Respondents, decided on5/27/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — section 13(1)(e) — petition under — customary divorce — registered — permanent alimony received by the wife — there does not exist any period of limitation in respect of an offence under Section 494, as the maximum period of punishment which can be imposed therefor is seven years — the customary divorce may be legal or illegal. The fact that such an agreement had been entered into or the appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of permanent alimony, however, stands admitted. The document is a registered one. Appellant being in the legal profession must be held to be aware of the legal implication thereof. If the contents of the said agreement are taken to be correct, indisputably the parties had been living separately for more than ten years. How then a case under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have made out and that too at such a distant point of time is the question, particularly in view of the bar of limitation as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise it is unbelievable that the appellant was really harassed by her husband or her in-laws — a criminal prosecution shall not lie. It was initiated mala fide. Thus, if it is allowed to continue, the same shall be an abuse of the process of court.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2008)
Narayanamurthy Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka & another Respondents, decided on 5/13/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — sections 3, 4 and 6 — trial under — the learned trial Judge found the evidence of prosecution witnesses insufficient and lacking for holding A-1 and A-3 guilty of the offences alleged against them and, accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges — on appeal by the State, the Division Bench of the High Court convicted A-1 for offences under Sections498a and 304B of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 304B, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498a, IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months — the evaluation of the findings recorded by the High Court suffer from manifest error and improper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal of A-1 cannot be sustained — the considered opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution in regard to the involvement of A-1 in the death of Jagadeshwari is not proved beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution, hence, the High Court was in error in basing conviction of A-1 on weak and slender evidence appearing against him.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 895 of 2003)
Rajbabu and another Appellants Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 7/24/2008.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — sections 306 and 498a — conviction under — appeal — dismissal by High Court — the deceased was of the view point that her life has been spoiled by marrying Appellant No. 1. The letter reflects the attitude of the in-laws of the deceased towards the deceased. In the said letter there was no reference of any act or incident whereby the appellants were alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide — on such slender evidence, therefore, court is not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC — whether an offence is made out under section 498a of IPC. Though the letter allegedly written by the deceased mentions the fact that the attitude of the family was not good towards the deceased and she was not treated well but there is no mentioned about any of such incident — conviction under Sections 306 and 498a of the IPC passed against the appellant No. 2 set aside and this court acquits her granting her benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed in so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 2003)
Dinesh Seth Appellant Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Respondent, decided on 8/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B and 498a — appeal directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court whereby the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 304B Indian Penal Code — but was convicted under Section 498a IPC and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment — an offence under Section498a IPC is made out if the woman is subjected to physical assault, humiliation, harassment and mental torture — even though the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to establish charge under Section 304 or 306 IPC, conviction under Section 498a IPC can be upheld because the deceased was treated with cruelty by the appellant.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2001)
B. Venkat Swamy Appellant Vs. Vijaya Nehru and another Respondents, decided on 8/25/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 302 — acquittal under — challenged — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of respondent no.1 who was convicted for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498a and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — respondent and his mother faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498a IPC. In addition, respondent-accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, found that the accusations against A2 i.e. mother of the respondent – accused were not established and she was acquitted of the charges. However, respondent-accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498a, 302 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act — the examination in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. appears to have been done as an empty formality. The incriminating materials were not put to him. Though the High Court has not dealt with question of applicability of Section 498 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, but the evidence adduced does not establish the accusations — there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2001)
Chattar Singh and another Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 8/26/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — section 302, 498a and 201— conviction under — appellant-Mange Ram was convicted for offence punishable under Section 498a IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was confirmed by Division Bench of the High Court as also the sentences for both the appellants — after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility — the extra judicial confession before PW-10 which has been relied upon by both the trial Court and the High Court cannot be lost sight of — the conviction recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, considering the age of A-2 the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which is nearly one year so far as A-2 is concerned. Except the modification of sentence so far as A-2 is concerned the appeal is dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1453 of 2003)
State of A.P. Appellant Vs. Guvva Satyanarayana Respondent, decided on 9/24/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — conviction under — sentenced to file and two years — the High Court found that the charge in respect of Section 302 IPC rests on dying declaration purportedly to have been made by the deceased at 5.40 a.m. on 12.4.1994. Offence had taken place on 11.4.1994 at 9 p.m. The High Court found that the accusations so far as Section 302 IPC cannot be established and the dying declaration was not free from suspicion. However, the charge relatable to Section 498a was held to have been proved. For the same, sentence of two years RI imprisonment enhanced to three years RI — the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 2001)
Balwant Singh and others Appellants Vs. State of H.P. Respondent, decided on 9/29/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court holding each of the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while setting aside the conviction and the sentence imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC — challenged in this appeal — there is no material to establish the guilt of A-3 i.e. brother-in-law of the deceased. Consequently he stands acquitted of the charge. So far as other three accused persons are concerned, the accusations have been established by the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the documentary evidence and the exhibited letters and the convictions recorded so far as they are concerned cannot be faulted — the High Court has imposed sentence of one year. Considering the age of the father-in-law and mother-in-law (A-1 and A-4) and the period of sentence already undergone by them while upholding the conviction the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal stands dismissed so far as A-2 is concerned.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2003)
Rajendran and another Appellants Vs. State Asstt. Commnr. of Police Law & Order Respondent, decided on12/2/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — originally, the accused persons were charge sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Section 498a and 304 B IPC. The Trial Court after considering the material on record acquitted the appellants in respect of offence referred to Section 304 B and convicted them for offence under Section 498a IPC — the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 498(A) — appeals — sections 304B and 498a, IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved. The Explanation to Section 498a gives the meaning of `cruelty’. In Section 304B there is no such explanation about the meaning of `cruelty’ — section 498a IPC has two limbs. The first limb of Section498a provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. `Cruelty’ has been defined in clause (a) of the Explanation to the said Section as any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive to a woman to commit suicide — no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2008)
Vijay Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 12/1/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a 306 and 304B — trial under — Dowry death — daughter-in-law dies due to burns in matrimonial residence — trial court convicted mother-in-law and acquitted husband on a letter by the deceased daughter-in-law to her father, a prosecution witness — on appeal, High Court convicted the husband also based on the contents of the same letter — appeal — Supreme Court upheld trial court’s judgment.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Original Jurisdiction Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 71 of 2007)
Rajesh Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 1/23/2009.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 406, 498a read with section 34 — transfer of Criminal case filed under — this transfer petition was posted before Supreme Court Lok Adalat on 6.12.2008. The parties and their lawyers appeared and filed a joint petition stating that their disputes have been settled under the guidelines of the mediators who acted as Amicus Curiae — it is heartening to note that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have agreed to the terms. The transfer petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2009)
Varikuppal Srinivas Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 1/28/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 304B — conviction under — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 498a and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — the inevitable conclusion is that the trial court and the High Court have rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498a and 304B IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on2/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a, 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498a IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- — original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on2/12/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a, 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed convicted the appellant under section 498a IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- — original accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2009)
Munish Bhasin and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) and another Respondents, decided on 2/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 406 read with section 34 — complaint filed by wife for alleged commission of offences under against him and against his parents — High Court imposed the condition of payment of Rs. 12,500/- as maintenance for release on bail — assailed — the direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2006)
Pradeep Kumar Appellant/Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 3/31/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 304B — conviction under — upheld by the DB of Punjab & Haryana High Court — appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the second offence — appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 304(B) IPC and Section 498a IPC. Appellant alone was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — the only evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is that the accused and the deceased stayed in the same house. That is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the facts of the present case. However, the accusations related to Section 304 B IPC are satisfied — while setting aside the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, this Court upholds the conviction, so far as it relates to Section 304 B IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2003)
Sundar Babu and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent(s), decided on 2/19/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — petition under — dismissal by single Judge — challenged in this appeal — the complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec.498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — the powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution — the appeal deserves to be allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Petition No. C.C.No. 385/2000 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, are quashed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 2001)
Satish Kumar Batra and others Appellants/Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on4/1/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — conviction under — confirmed by additional sessions Judge — revision petition — dismissed by High Court — challenged in this appeal — six persons were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by Santosh Kumari — nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on bail pursuant to order dated 9.7.2001. Therefore, while upholding the conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the appellant nos.2 & 3 i.e. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations so far as they are concerned.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1080 of 2007)
Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 4/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 read with section 34, 498a and 323 read with section 34 — conviction under upheld by DB — the case of the prosecution is based on certain circumstances and the Trial Court and High Court found those circumstances to be sufficient to warrant the conviction of the appellant. The High Court found that the accusations for dowry torture were not established and therefor, it acquitted the appellant of the charge relating to Section 498a of the I.P.C. — the judgment of the High Court is assailed on the ground that the circumstances highlighted by the Trial Court and the High Court do not form a complete chain in order to rule out the innocence of the accused and to unerringly point at the accused to be author of the crime.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 2009)
Raman Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 4/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — trial under — the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur had directed acquittal of the appellant and two co-accused persons who faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab in respect of co-accused Satish Kumar, Madan Lal and Asha while upholding the conviction of the present appellant — the High Court’s judgment is not only sketchy but also devoid of reasons. Various factors highlighted would go to show that the prosecution has squarely failed to establish the accusations so far as the appellant is concerned. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2001 with Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2001)
Kanti Lal with Arvind Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304B and 498a — conviction under — by the impugned order, the High Court while dismissing the appeal of Arvind Kumar and Kanti Lal and confirming their conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498a of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1993, has set aside the conviction of Sanwal Chand, Bhanwar Lal, Chetan Lal, Popat Lal and Smt. Bagtu and acquitted them of the charged offences — having regard to the entire evidence discussed above and having carefully and closely considered the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken by both the courts was reasonable and plausible — no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Judges of the High Court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 2004)
State of West Bengal Appellant Vs. Dipak Halder and another Respondents, decided on 5/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a read with section 34 and section 302 read with section 109 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the three appellants before it who are described hereinafter as accused no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Respondent No.1-Dipak Halder was married to one Rimu. Alleging that deceased Rimu was killed by respondent No.1 and that she was tortured, for non-fulfillment of dowry on demand, prosecution was launched. Charge under Section 498a read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against all the three accused persons. Charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against respondent No.1, Dipak Halder while charge under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC was framed against other two accused persons — the circumstances point to only one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused-respondent no.1. The judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2009)
Shaikh Maqsood Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a , 304B and 302 — trial under — trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498a and 304B while recording conviction under Section 302 IPC — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003)
D. Jayanna Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304 B and 498 A — conviction under — upheld by the DB of Karnataka High Court — challenged in this appeal — though the evidence appears to be sufficient to bring in application of Section 498a, there is definite inadequacy to attrach Section 304B IPC — there is sufficient evidence relating to demand of dowry though for the purpose of Section304B, the evidence is not sufficient.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 2006)
Subramaniam Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 5/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a and 302 — FIR under — the learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 14.11.2000 recorded a judgment of acquittal in favour of appellant. The State preferred an appeal thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2005, the High Court while affirming the view of the trial court with regard to the order of acquittal of appellant of the charges under Section 498a of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, recorded a judgment of conviction and sentence against him under Section 302 of the IPC opining that its findings were unreasonable — in view of the admission made by the prosecution witnesses, the High Court, committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that he did not possess any land whatsoever — the High Court was considering a judgment of acquittal; it set aside a part of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. It could not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal if two views were possible. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or otherwise perverse. Circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, are not such which would lead to a definite conclusion that appellant and appellant alone had committed the offence. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court should have approached the case with some caution — the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2003)
State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Guntabai @ Bhagirathaibai and others Respondent(s), decided on4/21/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — three persons including the present respondent No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so far as present respondent No. 1 is concerned, and Sections 498a read with Section 34 IPC so far as all the three accused persons are concerned — judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2003)
State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Guntabai @ Bhagirathaibai and others Respondent(s), decided on4/21/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 498a — three persons including the present respondent No. 1 faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so far as present respondent No. 1 is concerned, and Sections 498a read with Section 34 IPC so far as all the three accused persons are concerned — judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra questioning the correctness of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2009)
Sasikumar Appellant Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 5/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 — conviction upheld by DB of Madras High Court while setting aside the conviction in terms of section 307 — appellant faced trial in the Court of Sessions, Vellore and was convicted in terms of Sections 302 and 307 IPC. He was acquitted of the charges relating to Section 498a IPC — judgment of DB challenged in this appeal — though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant — the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court placing reliance on the dying declaration cannot be faulted.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2003)
Manju Ram Kalita Appellant(s) Vs. State of Assam Respondent(s), decided on 5/29/2009.
Name of the Judge:  Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 494 and 498a — conviction under— the High Court concurred with the finding of facts, recorded by the Trial Court dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup — it is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse — all the three courts below erred in not considering the case in correct perspective — in view of the aforesaid, conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and punishment for the said offence awarded by the courts below are set aside. However, conviction and sentence under Section 494 IPC are maintained.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2004)
Shakson Belthissor Appellant Vs. State of Kerala and another Respondents, decided on 7/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: FIR and the charge under — petition for quashing the same — rejected by the Kerala High Court — appeal against the judgment — the High Court, however, without issuing any notice on the said petition rejected the petition holding that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the appellant — the scope and power of quashing a first information report and charge sheet under Section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive — on a reading of the FIR as also the charge sheet filed against the appellant no case under Section 498a is made out on the face of the record, and therefore, both the FIR as also the charge sheet are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC — the High Court failed to appreciate the facts in proper perspective, and therefore, committed an error on the face of the record.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1233 of 2009)
Raj Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 7/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 and 498a — conviction under — sentenced to imprisonment for life — the evidence on record shows that the deceased was totally unarmed. The appellant had inflicted blow with Polpat on the vital part of the body of the deceased, namely, head and inflicted the blow with such a great force that it resulted into her death. It is not the case of the appellant that the injury on the head of the deceased was accidental nor it is the case of the appellant that the blow was aimed on some other part of the body and because of supervening cause like sudden intervention or movement of the deceased the blow struck on the head. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it will have to be held that it was the intention of the appellant to cause that very injury which ultimately proved fatal — the offence committed by the appellant would be punishable as murder under Section 302 IPC and his case would not fall under the first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2009)
Subodh Kumar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on 7/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — bail granted to the appellant — cancelled — appeal — while considering the factors relevant for consideration of bail already granted vis-à-vis the factors relevant for rejection of bail, this Court pointed out that for cancellation of bail, conduct subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances will be relevant. The said observations were not intended to restrict the power of a superior court to cancel bail in appropriate cases on other grounds. In fact it is now well settled that if a superior court finds that the court granting bail had acted on irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to take note of any statutory bar to grant bail, or if there was manifest impropriety as for example failure to hear the public prosecutor/complainant where required, an order for cancellation of bail can in fact be made — while cancelling bail, the superior Court would be justified in considering the question whether irrelevant material were taken into consideration by the court granting bail — this Court is of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in confirming the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the bail which was arbitrarily granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2004)
Undavali Narayana Rao Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 7/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — conviction under by sessions Judge — affirmed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh — appeal — the High Court after appreciating the entire evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court — no cogent reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the courts below.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2009)
U. Suvetha Appellant Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another Respondents, decided on 5/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 498a — whether the term “relative of husband of a woman” within the meaning of Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code should be given an extended meaning is the question involved herein.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2009)
Sukanti Moharana Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent, decided on 7/29/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — 304B and 498a — conviction under — setting aside — but conviction — under Section 302 — the High Court while upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also held that the dying declaration (Ext. gets independent corroboration from the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before her parents i.e. PW-1 and PW-3 as well as PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 — taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, there is no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
Arun Kumar Sharma Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided on 10/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with 34, 498a & 304-B read with Section 34 — murder for dowry and cruelty on account of demand of dowry — accused convicted by Trial Court for committing murder of his wife — witnesses not inspired any confidence — found in the post-mortem report that the deceased had multiple bruises over front of neck varying in sizes and there was extra blood in the soft tissues of neck with fracture of hyoid bone of trachea — FIR sent to Magistrate after delay of 5 days — Investigation Officer not examined neighbours — apathy on the part of the I.O. to examining the house created suspicion — not appeared any serious effort made on the part of the appellate Court to delve deep into the record of the case and the evidence of the witnesses — due to the slip-shod investigation the death of deceased to go unpunished — benefit of doubt given to the accused — conviction order of trial Court and the appellate Court set aside — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003)
Neelu Chopra and another Appellant(s) Vs. Bharti Respondent(s), decided on 10/7/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 498a read with Section 114 — misbehaviour and cruelty on the part of the husband and his relatives — complaint filed by the complainant/respondent against her husband and parents-in-law on account of unreasonable demand of dowry — all the allegations made against the husband who had expired — no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description — held that it did not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence — the order of High Court set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance quashed — complaint quashed — appeal allowed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2120 of 2009)
Suman Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 11/13/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498a — on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 and statements recorded, the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet only against her in-laws but not against the appellant — application filed by the respondent No. 2 for issuing process against the appellant — Judicial Magistrate & Session Judge directed the appellant be summoned through bailable warrant — appellant challenged the revisional order as police not filed chargesheet against her — held that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence collected the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused — whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC — Yes — statements of complainant’s parents in corroboration with that of the complainant, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment — no interference in the orders of the Courts below — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1469 of 2008)
Govindappa and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent(s), decided on 5/11/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A/34 and 302/34 — cruelty by the husband and his relatives and punishment of murder — conviction and sentence under — as per the prosecution, the appellants poured kerosene on the deceased and appellant No.2 set fire in the presence of the neighbours and ran away from the house — due to 100% burn injuries, the victim died — the High Court confirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the A-1, A-2 and A-4 while acquitted A-3 and A-5 of the charges levelled against them — appeal — whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants-accused A-1, A-2, and A-4 for offences punishable under Section 498a, read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC? — Yes — whether the sentence imposed upon the appellants-accused is justifiable? — Yes — whether the High Court is right in confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants? — Yes — prosecution witnesses narrated how the deceased Renuka was humiliated and harassed at the instance of the appellants — though A-3 and A-5 were implicated in the commission of offence but in the absence of further corroboration were rightly acquitted — evidence of PW-9 were found in full corroboration with the dying declaration — PW-12 recorded the dying declaration of Renuka and the same was recorded after ascertaining her condition from PW-7/Doctor — post-mortem report indicated the death due to shock as a result of 100% burn and also found smell of kerosene on deceased body — held no interference in the impugned orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1733 of 2008)
Uday Chakraborty and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent(s), decided on 7/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a/304B — cruelty against the married woman by her husband and his relatives/dowry death — conviction and sentence under — the couple has not even completed a period of two years of their marriage when it was alleged that because of dowry, the accused and other family members tortured the deceased/wife physically and mentally and forcibly burnt her — the learned Sessions Court found all the five accused persons guilty under Sections 498a/304B of IPC and sentenced them accordingly. However, the High Court acquitted two persons and convicted three persons/appellants for the offence — appeal — the prosecution examined 31 witnesses and the cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record clearly showed that the appellants have been rightly found guilty of the offence by the High Court as the subsequent statements of different witnesses have fairly established on record that she was tortured and harassed for satisfying the demand of dowry — held that the offence under Sections 304B read with 498a of IPC has been proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1182-1184 of 2010)
Vijeta Gajra Appellant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Respondent, decided on 7/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498a and 406 — FIR registered under — for troubling the complainant on account of the dowry demands and for the offence of criminal breach of trust as alleged in respect of the diamond encrusted pendant and gold chain and earring set which the appellant had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone — this Court examined the ingredients of Section 498a and found that reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498a, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage, therefore, held that the appellant/foster sister of the complainant’s husband not to be tried for the offence under Section498a, IPC. However, this Court desist from quashing the FIR altogether in view of the allegations made under Section 406 but protected the interest of the appellant by directing that she would not be required to attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme necessity — appeal disposed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2010)
Amar Singh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent(s), decided on 8/3/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patniak(Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Cr. A – 1 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 304B — dowry death — conviction and sentence under — within 10 months of marriage, deceased was found dead in her in-laws house — deceased’s father lodged a written report that the deceased used to be harassed and humiliated in connection with demand of dowry — the trial court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life to the accused persons with concurrent sentence and fine. The High Court acquitted other accused and confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498a and 304B IPC — appeal — the appellant chose not to examine any defence witness to rebut the presumption of dowry death against him — the post-mortem report indicated that the deceased suffered 100% burns. PW-9/Doctor who performed the autopsy opined that the burns on the deceased were after strangulation and throttling — this court concluded that the statements made by the deceased before PW-4 and PW-5 that the appellant used to taunt the deceased in connection with demand of a Scooter or Rs.25,000/- within a couple of months before the death of the deceased are statements as to “the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death” — since there is no evidence as to the actual role played by the appellant in the death of the deceased, the impugned judgement of the High Court modified to the extent that sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant reduced to RI for 10 years — appeal partly allowed. Cr.A – 2 — acquittal — appeal against — the High Court viewed that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the mother and brother-in-law of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt — this court held that a prosecution witness who merely uses the word “harassed” or “tortured” and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the Court in cases under Section 498a and 304B IPC — appeal dismissed.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1419-1420 of 2010)
Ravindra Tukaram Hiwale Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 8/2/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498a and 306 — cruelty against women by her husband and/or his relatives and abetment of suicide — the deceased suffered serious burn injuries in the kitchen of the house and ultimately died of those injuries. She made a dying declaration that she had a quarrel with her husband over the house-hold chores and over the feeding of the children and she had thereafter poured kerosene on herself and then burnt herself — the trial court convicted & sentenced the appellant to 1 year imprisonment u/sec. 498-A and to a sentence of 4 years u/sec. 306. The High Court enhanced the sentence awarded by the Trial Court under Section 306 IPC from four to six years — appeal — the trial court gave a positive finding that the incident was a spontaneous one arising out of a family quarrel in the morning — the sentence awarded by the High Court quashed and the judgement of the trial court confirmed — appeal allowed.

Advertisements
Categories: 498A Judgements
  1. Amit
    July 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    These laws are anti men and is made to loot the innocent(almost 98%) husband and his family members. These laws are made by control freak woman’s group and corrupt politicians like Renuka Chaudhary,Alka and Girija Vyas who are themselves corrupt and ammend these laws by taking aid of feminist society. Read Renuka Chaudhary who has got sexual relations with Hasan Ali as is posted in newspapers.

  2. July 31, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Thanks Mr. Amit for enlightening me on some new information on Renuka Chaudhary. I have observed that most woman who insult men are themselves characterless. Pamel Bordes also said derogatory things against men. Shayri me kaha ja sakta hai Umr bhar ghalib yahi bhool karta rehgaya. Dhool chehre pet hi aina saaf karta reh gaya.( A characterless woman will come across the controversial men only. She should realize something is wrong with her first )

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: