LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, September 9, 2011

sister filed domestic violence case – As a matter of fact, especially when there is no quarrel between the « advocatemmmohan

As a matter of

fact, especially when there is no quarrel between the

Crl. R.P. No.131/2011
6

aggrieved person and her mother/RW2, and in the

absence of the father, aggrieved person/the daughter,

naturally expected to have entrusted the gold

ornaments with RW2/mother. The same fact is further

reiterated by Ext.D6 and D7 series. However, there is

no clear evidence regarding the entrustment of the gold

ornaments with the 1st respondent/1st revision

petitioner. Going by the judgment of the trial court, it

can be seen that in paragraph 11, the learned

Magistrate has observed that "In this circumstances,

what can be inferred is that the gold ornaments came to

the possession of RW2 from the custody of the first

respondent". On the basis of the above observation, the

learned Magistrate further found in paragraph 12 that

"It is already found that the gold ornaments came to the

possession of RW2, mother from the custody of the first

respondent. So the first respondent had not seriously

challenged the quantity of gold ornaments entrusted

with him". Going by the evidence, which read over by

Crl. R.P. No.131/2011
7

the counsel for the contesting parties and the available

materials would show that, the gold ornaments were

finally pledged by RW2, the mother of the contesting

parties. Except the mere suggestion of PW1, there is no

evidence to show that the gold ornaments were

entrusted with RW1. As per the fourth direction,

learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to

return 32 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the

aggrieved person. The value of 32 sovereigns of gold

ornaments is very high and therefore according to me,

in the absence of proper, reliable and acceptable

evidence that, 32 sovereigns of gold ornaments were

entrusted with the first respondent, the learned

Magistrate ought not have issued such direction. The

said direction is liable to be set aside