This judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirms the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in a IPC 302 case which also had IPC 498A and 34.
Interesting element in this case is, apart from the accused’s own plea of guilty while charges were read over to and being filed against him, it was his 9 year old daughter’s eye witness statement, which got him convicted.
Eesampalli Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 2 December, 2017
This Criminal Appeal is dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as the that allegations levelled by the complainant are not contemplated in the definition of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
The State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar on 12 December, 2015The allegation made by the knife?
that the husband did not give funds to meet the daily expenses.
Here is the acquittal judgment related to this DVC here.
Sub-Inspector of Police Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 11 July, 2017
It seems, the burden of proof is pushed onto the husband who has to prove that he didn’t commit DV. This is the essence of this judgment.
Note: The husband was acquitted in the IPC 498A case filed by Knife. Here is the judgment.
Velpula Kalyani Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 4 December, 2017
Another BS judgment here. Don’t want to write anything about it. Help yourself.
Tirumalasetty Jyothirmayi Vs Peddisetty Venkata Siva Sai Ram on 20 April, 2017
The Knife eyed share in houses and in lands of In Laws via this DV Case. Since maintenance was already granted in CrPC 125 case, no maintenance was granted in DVC. As there are no specific allegations of DV on respondent and also incidentally they got acquittal from the 498A case, no protection order was also issued.
Ballikurava Kiranmayi Vs Ballikurava Anjaneyulu on 5 May, 2015
Gujarat High Court has held that as no source of funds could be proved from which Dowry amount is given to accused, the accused are acquitted from Dowry allegations and there by IPC 498A is not made out.
Shobhnaben Vs Shekhar on 2 December, 2010
A Significant omission in the witness statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C amounted to a contradiction and resulted in acquittal of accused in this Supreme Court case under IPC 498A.
Explanation to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.
Explanation. – An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.”
Here is the Clincher…
A bare reading of this Explanation would reveal that if a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.
Subhash Vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010
In this Delhi High Court judgment, Justice V.K.Jain has held that Money Demanded after marriage are not in connection of Marriage.
Hans Raj Sharma & Ors. Vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 2 March, 2010
Wonderful judgment from High Court of Himachal Pradesh where the Husband was acquitted from IPC 498A for following reasons
Ramesh Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 April, 2017
