advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, May 5, 2014

Sec.498 A of I.P.C.- Sec.304 B and Sec.113 of Evidence Act - These two provisions in Indian Penal Code and Indian Evidence Act have been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 - soon before her death was subjected to cruelty in respect of demand of dowry concept - Trial court and High court convicted the Accused - Apex court held that when there had been persistent demand for dowry and also the complainant was not allowed to meet the deceased and further the death was caused by the consumption of oreganophosphorus compound, which conclusively establishes the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Trial court and high court rightly convicted the accused = Dinesh …..Appellant Versus State of Haryana ….Respondent = 2014 (April. Part )http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41467

Sec.498 A of I.P.C.- Sec.304 B and Sec.113 of Evidence Act - These two provisions in Indian Penal Code  and  Indian  Evidence Act have been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition  (Amendment)  Act,  1986 - soon before  her death was subjected to cruelty in respect of demand of dowry concept - Trial court and High court convicted the Accused - Apex court held that when there had been persistent demand for dowry and also the complainant was not allowed to meet the deceased and further the death was caused by  the  consumption  of  oreganophosphorus  compound,  which   conclusively establishes the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.  Trial court and high court rightly convicted the accused =

When
   Manju Bala’s father Ram Naresh and brother Raman were going to the  house
   of accused persons for seeing her, they noticed accused  Dinesh  and  his
   mother carrying Manju Bala in a  tractor  to  Civil  Hospital  Fatehabad.
   Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop tractor.   On arriving
   at Civil Hospital,  they learnt that   Manju   Bala   had   died   before
   reaching the Hospital.  Munni Bai – mother of the deceased suspected that
   her daughter was murdered by her husband Dinesh and his brothers,  namely
   Vinod and Rakesh, for not satisfying their  demand  for  dowry.   On  her
   statement, FIR No.441 dated  8.6.1994  under  section  498-A  and  304-B,
   Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) was registered in the Police  Station,
   Fatehabad and all the three accused were arrested.=
Accused controverted  the  allegations  and
   claimed that they had good relations with Manju, who at the time of first
   delivery developed complication and child died.  Thereafter, when she was
   about to deliver child, she again developed complication and  resultantly
   she died. =
The Trial Court after concluding  the  trial  found  the  charge
   under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC framed against accused Dinesh proved.
    The Trial Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the  charges
   under aforesaid sections against the other two accused Vinod  and  Rakesh
   and accordingly acquitted them of the charge.   The  Additional  Sessions
   Judge convicted Dinesh and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year under
   Section 498-A and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.  In default  of  payment  of
   fine, the accused-appellant was further directed to undergo  RI  for  six
   months.  He was further sentenced to  undergo  RI  for  ten  years  under
   Section 304-B, IPC.  Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.=
Assailing  the  impugned  judgment  of  conviction,  Mr.  Rishi
    Malhotra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for   the   appellant,   firstly
    contended that in absence of evidence that the deceased soon before  her
    death was subjected to cruelty, the conviction of  the  appellant  under
    Section 304-B, IPC cannot at all be  sustained. =
Lastly, it was contended that even  admitting  the  evidence  on
    record the demand, if any, was made about four years before the death of
    the deceased even then by no stretch of imagination it can be held  that
    soon  before  her  death  the  deceased  was  subjected  to  cruelty  or
    harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
Before we discuss the facts in evidence brought  on  record,  we
    wish to discuss the relevant provisions which are involved in this case.
     As noticed, the appellant is convicted under Section  304-B  of  I.P.C.
    The said section reads as under:-
            “304-B- Where the death of a woman is caused  by  any  burns  or
                bodily  injury  or  occurs  otherwise  than  under   normal
                circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it  is
                shown that soon before  her  death  she  was  subjected  to
                cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
                husband for, or in connection with, any demand  for  dowry,
                such death shall be called" dowry death", and such  husband
                or relative shall be  deemed  to  have  caused  her  death.
                Explanation.- For  the  purposes  of  this  sub-  section,"
                dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2  of  the
                Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
                (2) Whoever commits dowry  death  shall  be  punished  with
                imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than  seven
                years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

      11.    Another relevant provision  which  needs  to  be  discussed  is
    Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The  said  provision  is
    quoted hereinbelow:-
                 “113-B.  Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question
               is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman
               and it is shown that soon before her death  such  woman  had
               been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment  for,
               or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall
               presume  that  such  person  had  caused  the  dowry  death.
               Explanation.-- For the  purposes  of  this  section,"  dowry
               death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the
               Indian Penal Code.”

    12.     These two provisions in Indian Penal Code  and  Indian  Evidence
    Act have been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition  (Amendment)  Act,  1986=
   Considering the  evidence  referred  to  hereinbefore  and  the
    conduct of the accused persons,  there  cannot  be  any  difficulty  in
    holding that the deceased  died  because  of  cruelty,  harassment  and
    demand for dowry.  We are also of the considered opinion that there  is
    a proximate connection between cruelty, harassment  and  death  of  the
    deceased as discussed above.  There are  sufficient  materials  showing
    that the accused persons started demanding television  and  gold  chain
    etc. after the marriage and that their demand continued and the parents
    were not allowed to meet  their  daughter  unless  their  demands  were
    fulfilled.
2014 (April. Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41467
DIPAK MISRA, M.Y. EQBAL
                                                           ‘REPORTABLE’




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2011




   Dinesh
        …..Appellant




                                   Versus


   State of Haryana
   ….Respondent








                               J U D G M E N T


    M.Y. EQBAL, J.




            This appeal by special leave is directed  against  the  judgment
   and order dated 17th February, 2010 of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and
   Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 1006-SB of 1998 whereby learned  Judge  of
   the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by   the   appellant
   challenging the judgment  of  conviction/sentence  passed  by  the  trial
   court.


   2.       The prosecution version in a nutshell is that marriage of  Manju
   Bala was solemnized  with  Dinesh,  appellant-accused  about  four  years
   before her death.  Dowry in accordance with their financial capacity  was
   given by her parents at the time of marriage.  However, appellant and his
   two brothers, namely Vinod Kumar and Rakesh, were not satisfied with  the
   dowry  and  started  harassing  her  for  not  bringing  dowry  to  their
   satisfaction.  Although, mediators also requested accused persons not  to
   harass the deceased Manju Bala, their requests fell  flat.  It  has  also
   been alleged that the accused persons, appellant and  his  two  brothers,
   did not permit the parents of Manju Bala to meet her for the past several
   months prior to the death.


   3.       Manju Bala was carrying a pregnancy of about eight  months  when
   accused Vinod went to the house of her parents on the  fateful  day  i.e.
   on 7.6.1994 and informed them that Manju Bala was  seriously  ill.   When
   Manju Bala’s father Ram Naresh and brother Raman were going to the  house
   of accused persons for seeing her, they noticed accused  Dinesh  and  his
   mother carrying Manju Bala in a  tractor  to  Civil  Hospital  Fatehabad.
   Driver of the tractor ignored their signal to stop tractor.   On arriving
   at Civil Hospital,  they learnt that   Manju   Bala   had   died   before
   reaching the Hospital.  Munni Bai – mother of the deceased suspected that
   her daughter was murdered by her husband Dinesh and his brothers,  namely
   Vinod and Rakesh, for not satisfying their  demand  for  dowry.   On  her
   statement, FIR No.441 dated  8.6.1994  under  section  498-A  and  304-B,
   Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) was registered in the Police  Station,
   Fatehabad and all the three accused were arrested.  On  finding  a  prima
   facie case under aforesaid sections,  the  accused  persons  were  charge
   sheeted.


   4.       In order to  prove  its  case,  the  prosecution  examined  nine
   witnesses and closed the evidence.  Factum of marriage between Manju Bala
   and Dinesh was admitted when the  accused  persons  were  examined  under
   Section 313, Cr.P.C.  However, it was denied that  Manju  Bala  was  ever
   harassed for bringing dowry.  Accused controverted  the  allegations  and
   claimed that they had good relations with Manju, who at the time of first
   delivery developed complication and child died.  Thereafter, when she was
   about to deliver child, she again developed complication and  resultantly
   she died.  During trial, the accused examined three  witnesses  in  their
   defence.


   5.       The Trial Court after concluding  the  trial  found  the  charge
   under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC framed against accused Dinesh proved.
    The Trial Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the  charges
   under aforesaid sections against the other two accused Vinod  and  Rakesh
   and accordingly acquitted them of the charge.   The  Additional  Sessions
   Judge convicted Dinesh and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year under
   Section 498-A and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.  In default  of  payment  of
   fine, the accused-appellant was further directed to undergo  RI  for  six
   months.  He was further sentenced to  undergo  RI  for  ten  years  under
   Section 304-B, IPC.  Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.




   6.       Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  Trial  Court,
   appellant approached the High Court preferring Criminal Appeal  No.  1006
   of 1998.  After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
   the essential ingredients of Section 304-B, IPC,  learned  Judge  of  the
   High Court dismissed the appeal observing that  there  is  evidence  with
   regard to the factum of persisting demand of  dowry  and  on  account  of
   failure to meet the demand for dowry, Manju Bala was compelled to  commit
   suicide within a period of four years of  marriage,  though  the  precise
   date of her marriage is not in evidence  but  both  sides  admitted  that
   marriage was solemnized about four years prior to her death.


    7.      We have gone through the judgment passed by Trial Court and also
    by the Appellate Court.  Both  the  Courts  on  appreciation  of  entire
    evidence came to the conclusion that  the  prosecution  has  proved  the
    charges against the appellant.   The  High  Court  while  affirming  the
    judgment of the Trial Court has considered the provision of Section 304-
    B, I.P.C. and Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.  The High  Court
    relied upon the evidences of PWs.1, 2 and 5 to come  to  the  conclusion
    that there had been persistent demand for dowry and also the complainant
    was not allowed to meet the deceased and further the death was caused by
    the  consumption  of  oreganophosphorus  compound,  which   conclusively
    establishes the appellant guilty under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal
    Code. The High Court further recorded the findings that the totality  of
    evidence reveal persisting demand for dowry and on the  failure  of  the
    complainant to meet the demand, the deceased was compelled to commit the
    suicide within the period of four years of marriage.

    8.       Assailing  the  impugned  judgment  of  conviction,  Mr.  Rishi
    Malhotra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for   the   appellant,   firstly
    contended that in absence of evidence that the deceased soon before  her
    death was subjected to cruelty, the conviction of  the  appellant  under
    Section 304-B, IPC cannot at all be  sustained.   Learned  counsel  also
    submits that Munni Bai, mother of the deceased, who was examined as PW-1
    deposed that she was not aware about the reason  of  the  death  of  the
    deceased. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and during
    her cross-examination she categorically admitted that the police did not
    record her statement according to her  narration.  Learned  counsel  has
    further drawn our attention to the evidence of these witnesses on  cross
    examination where she was confronted with the fact of alleged demand for
    dowry where the witness admitted that she  had  not  stated  before  the
    police that accused were demanding T.V. and  a  golden  chain.   Learned
    counsel contended that PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, who was one of  the  mediators
    in the said marriage, wrongly stated that the alleged demand  for  dowry
    by the accused persons were made approximately  four  years  before  the
    date of occurrence. On the basis  of  these  evidence,  learned  counsel
    contended that  the  courts  below  without  looking  into  the  various
    material contradictions have passed the impugned  order  of  conviction.
    Learned counsel submitted that the High Court completely overlooked  the
    most essential ingredient i.e. soon before her death the  deceased  must
    have subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection  with  demand  for
    dowry.  Lastly, it was contended that even  admitting  the  evidence  on
    record the demand, if any, was made about four years before the death of
    the deceased even then by no stretch of imagination it can be held  that
    soon  before  her  death  the  deceased  was  subjected  to  cruelty  or
    harassment in connection with the demand for dowry.
    9.      Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for  the
    prosecution,  has  supported  the  impugned  judgment  by  drawing   our
    attention to the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

      10.   Before we discuss the facts in evidence brought  on  record,  we
    wish to discuss the relevant provisions which are involved in this case.
     As noticed, the appellant is convicted under Section  304-B  of  I.P.C.
    The said section reads as under:-
            “304-B- Where the death of a woman is caused  by  any  burns  or
                bodily  injury  or  occurs  otherwise  than  under   normal
                circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it  is
                shown that soon before  her  death  she  was  subjected  to
                cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
                husband for, or in connection with, any demand  for  dowry,
                such death shall be called" dowry death", and such  husband
                or relative shall be  deemed  to  have  caused  her  death.
                Explanation.- For  the  purposes  of  this  sub-  section,"
                dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2  of  the
                Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
                (2) Whoever commits dowry  death  shall  be  punished  with
                imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than  seven
                years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”

      11.    Another relevant provision  which  needs  to  be  discussed  is
    Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The  said  provision  is
    quoted hereinbelow:-
                 “113-B.  Presumption as to dowry death.- When the question
               is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman
               and it is shown that soon before her death  such  woman  had
               been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment  for,
               or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall
               presume  that  such  person  had  caused  the  dowry  death.
               Explanation.-- For the  purposes  of  this  section,"  dowry
               death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the
               Indian Penal Code.”

    12.     These two provisions in Indian Penal Code  and  Indian  Evidence
    Act have been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition  (Amendment)  Act,  1986
    with a view to combating the increasing  menace  of  dowry  death.   The
    legislative intent of enacting these provisions is to curb the menace of
    dowry death.  This Court while considering the legislative intent in the
    case of State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh, AIR (1991) SC 1532 observed  as
    under:-
               “8. The legislative intent is clear to curb  the  menace  of
               dowry deaths, etc., with a firm hand. We must keep  in  mind
               this legislative intent. It must be  remembered  that  since
               crimes are generally committed in the privacy of residential
               homes and in secrecy, independent and direct evidence is not
               easy to get. That is why the legislature has by  introducing
               Sections 113-A and  113-B  in  the  Evidence  Act  tried  to
               strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting a presumption
               to be raised if certain foundational facts  are  established
               and the unfortunate event has taken place within seven years
               of marriage. This period of seven years is considered to  be
               the turbulent one after which the legislature  assumes  that
               the couple would have settled down in  life.  If  a  married
               women is subjected to cruelty or harassment by  her  husband
               or his family members Section 498-A, IPC would be attracted.
               If such cruelty or harassment was inflicted by  the  husband
               or his relative for, or in connection with, any  demand  for
               dowry immediately preceding death by burns and bodily injury
               or in abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage,
               such husband or relative is deemed to have caused her  death
               and is liable to be punished under Section 304-B, IPC.  When
               the question at issue is whether a person is guilty of dowry
               death of a woman and the evidence discloses that immediately
               before her death she was subjected by such person to cruelty
               and/or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
               dowry, Section 113-B, Evidence Act provides that  the  court
               shall presume that such person had caused the  dowry  death.
               Of  course  if  there  is  proof  of   the   person   having
               intentionally caused her death that  would  attract  Section
               302, IPC. Then we have a situation where the husband or  his
               relative by his wilful conduct creates a situation which  he
               knows will  drive  the  woman  to  commit  suicide  and  she
               actually does so, the case would squarely  fall  within  the
               ambit of Section 306, IPC. In such a case the conduct of the
               person  would  tantamount  to  inciting  or   provoking   or
               virtually pushing the woman into a desperate situation of no
               return which would compel her to put an end to her  miseries
               by committing suicide.”



      13.   If we read the aforementioned two provisions i.e.  Section  304-
    B, IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, it  is  evident  that  the
    prosecution must have brought on record the materials to show that  soon
    before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment.

    14.     In the case of Ramesh Panjiyar vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 2  SCC
    388,  this  Court  held  that  the  prosecution  has  to  rule  out  the
    possibility of a natural or incidental death so as to  bring  it  within
    the  purview  of  “Death  occurring  otherwise  than   in   the   normal
    circumstances”. The expression “soon  before”  is  very  relevant  where
    Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section  304-B,  IPC  are  pressed
    into service.  Hence, the prosecution  is  obliged  to  show  that  soon
    before the occurrence there was cruelty or  harassment  only  attracting
    the provision of Section 113-B.

      15.   The expression “soon before” is a relative term as held by  this
    Court,  which  is  required  to  be  considered   under   the   specific
    circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula  can  be  laid
    down by fixing any time of allotment.  It can  be  said  that  the  term
    “soon before” is synonyms  with  the  term  “immediately  before”.   The
    determination of the period which can come within term “soon before”  is
    left  to  be  determined  by  courts  depending  upon  the   facts   and
    circumstances of each case.

      16.   In the case of  Kanas Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,  (2000)  5
    SCC 207, it was held that in  case  of  dowry  death  the  circumstances
    showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased  are  not
    restricted to a particular instances but normally refer to a  course  of
    conduct.  Such conduct may be spread over a  period  of  time.   If  the
    cruelty or harassment or demand of dowry is shown to have persisted,  it
    shall be deemed to be “soon before death”.

    17.     Prima facie we are of the view that neither definite period  has
    been indicted in the aforementioned section  nor  the  expression  “soon
    before” has been defined.  In the case of Dhian Singh & Anr.  vs.  State
    of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 759, this Court held that:-
                  “The contention of the appellant’s counsel is  that  even
               if it is proved that there was cruelty on account of  demand
               of dowry, such cruelty shall be soon before  the  death  and
               there must  be  proximate  connection  between  the  alleged
               cruelty and the death of the deceased. It is true  that  the
               prosecution has  to  establish  that  there  must  be  nexus
               between the cruelty and the suicide and  the  cruelty  meted
               out must have induced the  victim  to  commit  suicide.  The
               appellant has no case that there was any  other  reason  for
               her to commit suicide. The evidence  shows  that  the  first
               appellant had demanded dowry and he had sent her  away  from
               his house and only after mediation she was taken back to the
               appellant’s house and death happened within a period of  two
               months thereafter. These facts clearly show that the suicide
               was the result of the harassment or cruelty meted out to the
               deceased. The presumption under Section 113-B of the  Indian
               Evidence Act could be invoked against the appellant and  the
               Sessions Court rightly found the  appellant  guilty  of  the
               offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and  Section  201
               IPC.”




    18.      Coming  to  the  facts  of  the  present  case,  it  has  been
    sufficiently proved that the death was caused  due  to  consumption  of
    oreganophosphorus compound which is a pesticide.  Dr. S.P.  Mimani  and
    Dr. S.P. Dadich (PW-9) conducted postmortem  examination  on  the  dead
    body of the  deceased.   They  collected  viscera  including  parts  of
    stomach, intestine, lung, kidney and  blood.   On  examination  of  the
    viscera it was found containing oreganophosphorus compound which  is  a
    poisonous substance.  In the opinion of  Dr.  S.P.  Mimani  (PW-9)  the
    death was caused  by  the  aforementioned  compound.   Admittedly,  the
    marriage was solemnised before four years from the date of  occurrence.
    The defence of the accused that  the  death  was  caused  due  to  some
    complication developed at the advanced stage of pregnancy,  is  without
    any basis.  The mother of the  deceased,  who  was  examined  as  PW-1,
    deposed that at the time of  marriage  dowry  was  paid  as  per  their
    financial position.  After the marriage the deceased Manju Bala visited
    her paternal home and informed her parents that her husband Dinesh  and
    his brothers Vinod Kumar and  Rakesh  were  ill-treating  her  for  not
    bringing television and gold chain in dowry.  This was brought  to  the
    notice of Suresh and Rakesh, who acted as  mediators  at  the  time  of
    settlement of marriage proposal and requested the accused  persons  not
    to harass the deceased but they did not  heed  to  it.    PW-1  further
    deposed that the accused person  did  not  allow  them  to  meet  their
    daughter.  The evidence of PW- 1 was corroborated by Ram Naresh (PW-5),
    who also reiterated that the accused persons were demanding  television
    and a gold chain and the deceased was  subjected  to  cruelty  for  not
    bringing enough dowry.  PW-5 further deposed that when he went  to  the
    house of accused persons at the time of marriage of his brother  Vinod,
    he was again reminded that he should come to  their  house  only  after
    giving  television  and  gold  chain.   From  the  evidence  of   other
    witnesses,  it  is  sufficiently  established  that  there   had   been
    persistent demand for dowry from the side of the  accused  persons  and
    for non-fulfilment of their demand the deceased Manju  Bala  was  being
    subjected to cruelty and harassment.  Because of persistent demand  for
    dowry and continuous torture, harassment and cruelty meted out  on  the
    deceased Manju Bala, she died by consuming pesticide.


    19.     Considering the  evidence  referred  to  hereinbefore  and  the
    conduct of the accused persons,  there  cannot  be  any  difficulty  in
    holding that the deceased  died  because  of  cruelty,  harassment  and
    demand for dowry.  We are also of the considered opinion that there  is
    a proximate connection between cruelty, harassment  and  death  of  the
    deceased as discussed above.  There are  sufficient  materials  showing
    that the accused persons started demanding television  and  gold  chain
    etc. after the marriage and that their demand continued and the parents
    were not allowed to meet  their  daughter  unless  their  demands  were
    fulfilled.

    20.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, both  the  Sessions
    Court and the High Court have come to  the  correct  finding  that  the
    accused is guilty of offence under Section 304-B of the  IPC  and  that
    the presumption contained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is fully
    applicable to the facts of the case.


    21.      In  our  considered  opinion,  therefore,  the   judgment   of
    conviction passed by the courts below needs  no  interference  by  this
    Court.  Hence, there is no merit in  this  appeal  and  is  accordingly
    dismissed.  The appellant shall be  taken  into  custody  forthwith  to
    serve the remaining sentence.


                                                               ………………………….J.
                                                               (Dipak Misra)






                                                               ………………………….J.
                                                                (M.Y. Eqbal)
   New Delhi,
   April 25, 2014.


ITEM NO.1A             COURT NO.12             SECTION IIB

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 578 OF 2011


DINESH                                    Appellant(s)

                 VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                          Respondent(s)

[HEARD BY : HON'BLE DIPAK MISRA AND HON'BLE M.Y.EQBAL, JJ.]

Date:25/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for Judgment               today.


For Appellant(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.


For Respondent(s)      Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv.(Not Present)



            Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal pronounced  the  judgment  of  the
      Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.
            For the reasons recorded in the Reportable  judgment,  which  is
      placed on the file, the appeal is dismissed.
            The appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the
      remaining sentence.




      |(Parveen Kr.Chawla)                    | |(Phoolan Wati Arora)                  |
|Court Master                           | |Assistant Registrar                   |
|                                       | |                                      |

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.