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 Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Sanjay Bhalkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 Jan 2020 November 27, 2023
  • Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr on 02 May 2023 November 26, 2023
  • Chetram Mali Vs Karishma Saini on 21 Nov 2023 November 23, 2023
  • Priya Indoria Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 20 Nov 2023 November 23, 2023
  • Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr Vs Union of India and Ors on 19 Nov 2010 November 13, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 (4,340 views)
  • Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 (1,936 views)
  • Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 (1,869 views)
  • Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 (1,789 views)
  • Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023 (1,756 views)
  • Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 (1,705 views)
  • Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 (1,445 views)
  • Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023 (1,166 views)
  • Asfaq Alam Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2023 (948 views)
  • Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023 (864 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (360)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (347)Landmark Case (334)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (300)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (233)Work-In-Progress Article (216)1-Judge Bench Decision (193)Sandeep Pamarati (91)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (88)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (58)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (52)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (38)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (35)Advocate Antics (35)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (33)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (664)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (300)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (162)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (120)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (95)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (58)General Study Material (55)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (20)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • Akif on Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC
  • ShadesOfKnife on Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma on 01 June 2015
  • Adv. Dipankar Saha on Vipul Lakhanpal Vs Pooja Sharma on 01 June 2015
  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • Anuj Rathi on All Reliefs from Judiciary

Archives of SoK

  • 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 (19)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • HKG (Hong Kong) on 2023-12-13 December 13, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Dec 13, 19:00 - 23:00 UTCNov 29, 09:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in HKG (Hong Kong) datacenter on 2023-12-13 between 19:00 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 […]
  • HKG (Hong Kong) on 2023-12-11 December 11, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Dec 11, 19:00 - 23:00 UTCNov 29, 09:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in HKG (Hong Kong) datacenter on 2023-12-11 between 19:00 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 […]
  • LAS (Las Vegas) on 2023-12-06 December 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Dec 6, 17:00 - 21:00 UTCNov 30, 17:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in LAS (Las Vegas) datacenter on 2023-12-06 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.48.37.94 | SW November 29, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 565,868 | First: 2020-01-25 | Last: 2023-11-29
  • 209.85.219.184 | S November 29, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 113 | First: 2018-10-12 | Last: 2023-11-29
  • 178.151.205.154 | SDC November 29, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 487 | First: 2018-09-24 | Last: 2023-11-29
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 749 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel