MERE DEMAND ?

mere demand for money for purchasing tractor and bull etc., without any harassment or coercion, cannot be considered as cruelty as per explanations of sec. 498A IPC . so no conviction is required. - 2009 [2] A L D Cri. AP 700.

dowry harassment place of resident - territorial jurisdiction

after the marriage, the parents of wife, came to Andhra Pradesh and settled. after one year of the marriage, she was forced to come out of the matrimonial house by the husband from Uatter Pradesh. all the allegations said to be occurred were happens in the U.P. state but not at A.P. where she is now residing , unless the case falls under sec. 178 Cr.P.C. JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN

INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.— Every offence shall ordinary be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

178. Place of inquiry or trial.— (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or

(b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and party in another, or

(c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local area has one, or

(d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, It may be inquired to or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. the court at sangareddy , would got jurisdiction. since there is no pleadings as per sec.178, the sangareddy court has no territorial jurisdiction. ---2009 [2] ALD Cri. A.P. 349.

what is cruelty ?

sec, 498 A and explanations [a] and [b] - to constitute cruelty within meaning of exp.[a] conduct on part of husband or relatives of husband of woman, must be of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life ,limb, or health, whether mental or physical of a woman. To constitutes cruelty of exp.[b] - thee must be harassment of woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security . In the absence of any such allegations neither in FIR nor charge make out a case under section 498A - that FIR and charge sheet both are liable to quashed under sec.482 of Cr.P.C. 2009 [2] ALD Cri. SC 497.

BIGAMY -ADMISSION OF ACCUSED IN his counter of M.C.

SEC.494 IPC494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Exception.—This Section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declare void by a Court of competent jurisdiction,

Nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.======SO, the mere admission of second marriage by accused not sufficient to sustain conviction and complainant has to prove that accused married another person according to Hindu law during subsistence of first marriage - 2009 [2] ALD Cri. AP 450 229. Conviction on plea of guilty.—If the accused pleads guilty; the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. THIS SECTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE NOT APPLY AS THE ACCUSED NOT ADMITTED DIRECTLY WHILE ANSWERING THE CHARGE . THE ALLEGED ADMISSION BY WAY OF COUNTER IN M.C., IS NOT AND NOT AT ALL BE CONSIDERED AS PLEADED GUILTY UNDER SEC.229 OF Cr.P.C.- HOPE THAT THE DOUBTS ARE CLEARED.

HOW TO PROVE SELF DE FENCE .

SEC. 96 TO 100 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

96. Things done in private defence.—Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

97. Right of private defence of the body and of property.—Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend.—

First.—His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

Secondly.—The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief for criminal trespass.

98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.—When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

ILLUSTRATIONS

(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

99. Act against which there is no right of private defence.—There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised.—The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Explanation 1.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.

100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.—The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding Section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely—

First.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly.—An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly.—An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly.—An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. BURDEN OF PROOF THOUGH ON ACCUSED, NOT AS ONEROUS AS THE ONE WHICH LIES WITH PROSECUTION. ACCUSED MAY DISCHARGE HIS ONUS BY ESTABLISHING A MERE PREPONDENRANCE OF PROBABILITIES EITHER BY LAYING BASIS FOR THAT PLEA IN CROSS EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESS OR BY ADDUCING DEFENCE EVIDNEC - 2009 [2] ALD Cri. SC 233.