LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label DOWRY HARASSMENT CASES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOWRY HARASSMENT CASES. Show all posts
Thursday, March 15, 2012

Coming to the credibility of the defence witnesses, we have already noticed that Ex.D1 is a document created by the defence just to escape the punishment under law. If that is what the deceased wanted to say, she had a number of opportunities to say so, freely and voluntarily. However, in presence of the Tehsildar and twice in presence of the Police, she made the same statement implicating her husband Bhajju of pouring kerosene oil on her and putting her on fire. Where was the necessity of typing an affidavit and getting the same thumb-marked by the deceased when she was suffering 60% burn injuries. If the version given in 23 this affidavit was true, we see no reason why the deceased should have stated before the police and the Tehsildar what she did. The two defence witnesses, namely Prabhat Kumar Sharma, DW1 and Laxmi Prasad Yadav, DW2, were examined by the defence to prove its innocence. DW1, the Notary Public, does not state as to where, when and at whose instance the affidavit was typed. This witness has completely failed to explain as to why the photograph of the deceased was fixed on the affidavit. If it was the requirement of law, then why the photograph of a date prior to the date on which the affidavit was sworn and attested, was affixed on the affidavit. This witness also admitted in his cross-examination that he knew that the affidavit was being sworn for belying a statement made earlier, but he made no enquiries from the deceased or from any other proper quarters to find out what was the previous statement of the deceased. It will not be safe for the Court to rely on the statement of this witness. DW2, is the person who had typed the affidavit, Ex.D1. He knew Medabai. According to this witness, the contents were typed on the basis of what Medabai had stated. There are contradictions between the statements of DW1 and DW2. We do not think that these witnesses are reliable and their statements are trustworthy. We would expect a Notary Public to maintain better professional standards rather than act at the 24 behest of a particular party. 24. For these reasons, we find no ground to interfere in the concurrent judgments of conviction and order of sentence. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed accordingly.

›
                                               1                                                     REPORTABLE                   ...
Thursday, April 14, 2011

Section 188 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: Offence committed outside India: When an offence is committed outside India--- a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

›
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO       CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2976 of 2009 and 4921 of 2010   01-03-2011 Crl.P.No.2976 of 2009 ...
Sunday, January 9, 2011

ABSENCE OF CHARGE IS NOT FATAL FOR CONVICTION UNDER SEC.306 I.P.C

›
                                                REPORTABLE           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTI...