web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Evidence Act 114A – Adverse Inference

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Posted on January 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court says,

9. No explanation is forthcoming from the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to when he parted the company of the victim. Also, no explanation is there as to what happened after getting the chocolates for the victim. The silence on the part of the accused, in such a matter wherein he is expected to come out with an explanation, leads to an adverse inference against the accused.

Circumstantial Evidence…

10. We find that there is ample material against the accused to convict him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. All the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand proved so as to complete the chain of circumstances in respect of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Trial Court and the High Court are, on facts, justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, we are unable to find reliable material against the accused for the offences under Section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.

Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan on 14 Nov 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/45763796/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/prahlad-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-40094

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Circumstantial Evidence - Suspicion cannot take the place of proof CrPC 313 - Power to examine the accused Death Penalty Commuted to Life Imprisonment Evidence Act 114A - Adverse Inference Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan Right to Remain Silent | Leave a comment

Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016

Posted on July 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Some interesting points in this DVC order.

From Para 10,

There is no pleading and evidence of the petitioner before this Court that the respondent no.1 was consuming alcohol even prior to their marriage or that he had started to consume alcohol from the first day of their marriage or immediately thereafter. According to the evidence of the petitioner the respondent no.1 developed sudden addiction towards alcohol after the birth of their child. The said version of the petitioner is difficult to believe as a person who is a teetotaler for couple of years of his marriage, all of a sudden he develops chronic addiction towards alcohol and spendthrift without any reason.

From Para 11,

The petitioner has stated during the course of her cross-examination that only she and the respondents no.1 and 2 only were residing together, and the respondent no.3 to 6 were residing separately. When the respondents no.3 to 6 were not residing along with the petitioner in her matrimonial house then the manner and mode of the alleged subjection of the petitioner to domestic violence must be specifically pleaded and proved by the petitioner. There is no averment in the pleading and evidence of the petitioner the respondents no.3 to 6 were instigating the respondent no.1 for performing second marriage with another woman by coming to the matrimonial house of the petitioner or through other mediums like communication etc., in the presence and hearing of the petitioner, and also about the manner in which, and the modes through which, she was beaten by the respondents no.3 to 6. The petitioner also did not aver and depose the exact abusive words that was allegedly uttered by the respondents no.3 to 6 to her and also the nature of threat that was allegedly given to her by the respondents no.3 to 6 in absence of the respondent no.1.

From Para 13,

and that on one occasion without informing the respondent no.1 she got terminated her pregnancy when she conceived for the second time after the birth of their son, and that the petitioner has been voluntarily residing separately from the respondent no.1. The evidence of the respondent shows that after their marriage the petitioner was insisting him to set up separate family at the village of her parents at Konijedu village, that the petitioner did not like her mother-in-law shall reside along with them, and that after the birth of their son when the petitioner had conceived for the second child then with the assistance of her sister by name Haseena, who is residing at Nellore town, she got terminated the pregnancy without informing him, has not been challenged by the petitioner during the course of his cross-examination. Thus, the unrebutted evidence of the respondent discloses that the petitioner has rather victimized the respondent no.1.

From Para 14,

The cross-examination of PW2 indicates that she had not personally observed the parents of the petitioner giving Rs.1,30,000/- cash, 20 sovereigns of gold ornament, household articles as dowry to the respondents, as such, his evidence can be said to be hearsay in nature, and unreliable in that regard. The cross-examination of PW3 discloses that Rs.1,30,000/- dowry, gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns, and household articles were presented in her absence, and that her evidence is also hearsay in nature, and unreliable in that regard. Per contra the cross-examination of PW3 discloses that gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns were presented to the petitioner in her marriage. Thus it can be said that the said gold ornaments were not presented to the respondent as dowry by the parents of the petitioner. The evidence of the parents of the petitioner is the best evidence to prove that the alleged presentation of dowry in the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent no.1 to the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioner that her parents are not more alive. The parents of the petitioner are not examined by the petitioner before this Court. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the petitioner for not examining her parents to establish the alleged presentation of dowry in her marriage by her parents to the respondents.

From Para 15,

The petitioner has claimed maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent for herself and her son. The petitioner did not plead and testify before this Court about her inability to maintain herself and her son, and also about the sufficiency of the means of the respondent no.1 to provide maintenance to her and her son.

Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016
Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved Evidence Act 114A - Adverse Inference Hearsay Evidence Inability to Maintain Self Not Testified Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
gvk_india GVK...... @gvk_india ·
18h

చిన్న దొరా...
మనుషుల్ని, వాళ్ళ క్యారెక్టర్ ని మీ అవసరాలకి అనుగుణంగా మార్చుకోవడం, వాడుకోవడంలో మిమ్మల్ని కొట్టేవాడే లేడు...
అసలు జగ్గప్పతో సావాసం చేయడం ఎందుకు...?
తన ప్రాపకం కోసం తనకి ఇష్టం లేనోళ్ళ మీద మీరూ అయిష్టం పెంచుకోని అదుపుతప్పి మాట్లాడడం ఎందుకు...? ఇప్పుడు మాటల్తో మిమ్మల్ని…

Reply on Twitter 1946187158622282066 Retweet on Twitter 1946187158622282066 53 Like on Twitter 1946187158622282066 102 X 1946187158622282066
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
gbou_offl Global Box Office @gbou_offl ·
17h

ఆంధ్రా ప్రదేశ్ లో అత్యుత్తమ రాజకీయ నాయకుడు ఎవరు ?

🔁 @ncbn ❤️ #YSR

2

Reply on Twitter 1946197710371196956 Retweet on Twitter 1946197710371196956 145 Like on Twitter 1946197710371196956 1356 X 1946197710371196956
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
14 Jul

.@MSRajuTDPOffl @BbcN9966 @bbcnewstelugu @AmbicaOfficial @etvandhraprades @appugog @xpressandhra @iTDPAnanthapur @Cbnarmyvizag @JaiTDP @Dr_nelavalaMLA @naralokesh @kpsarathyTDP @RKarimilli @AraniiSrinivas @chandujanyat @Telugodu1982 @YSRCParty @cbn_updates1 @umasudhir @ds

Reply on Twitter 1944792946295095786 Retweet on Twitter 1944792946295095786 3 Like on Twitter 1944792946295095786 3 X 1944792946295095786
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
15 Jul

.@bbcnewstelugu @indialegalmedia @Luthra_Sidharth @AmbicaOfficial @barandbench @LiveLawIndia @GvNarasaiah @IndianLawyers_ @ZeeTeluguLive @ravivallabha @dileep_paturu @VasBytes @Telugodu1982 @tatinenis @i_itdp @DSGRAJU1 @being_dsb @Indraneel_Adv @advocate_ap @ImYanamala @KazaVk

Reply on Twitter 1945022202992095482 Retweet on Twitter 1945022202992095482 4 Like on Twitter 1945022202992095482 4 X 1945022202992095482
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ekta Kapur Vs Kunal Kapur on 21 May 2025 July 15, 2025
  • Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 July 14, 2025
  • Evidence Act Sec 65 – Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given July 14, 2025
  • State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025 July 14, 2025
  • Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working? July 13, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (3,064 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,494 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,470 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,881 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,744 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,428 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,213 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (1,063 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (1,017 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (879 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (376)Landmark Case (370)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (296)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (275)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (61)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (719)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (320)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (180)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (43)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)
  • सुमन सेठ on PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)
  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife

Archives of SoK

  • July 2025 (6)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • NRT (Tokyo) on 2025-07-24 July 24, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 24, 17:00 - 21:00 UTCJul 16, 02:26 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NRT (Tokyo) datacenter on 2025-07-24 between 17:00 and 21:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • SEA (Seattle) on 2025-07-23 July 23, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 23, 08:30 UTC  -  Jul 24, 13:00 UTCJul 18, 19:02 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SEA (Seattle) datacenter between 2025-07-23 08:30 and 2025-07-24 13:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance […]
  • BNA (Nashville) on 2025-07-22 July 22, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 22, 15:00 - 23:00 UTCJul 18, 18:16 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BNA (Nashville) datacenter on 2025-07-22 between 15:00 and 23:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 112.194.89.24 | SD July 18, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 67 | First: 2018-11-08 | Last: 2025-07-18
  • 20.253.155.235 | S July 18, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3 | First: 2024-11-12 | Last: 2025-07-18
  • 217.12.123.3 | SD July 18, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5,805 | First: 2017-01-10 | Last: 2025-07-18
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1635 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel