![]() He would submit that when doubts were established, the Appellant should have been the beneficiary of doubts. He reminds that the post-mortem report has been prepared after more than five months from the date on which the post-mortem was allegedly performed. He complains that the Trial Court has got over this by merely finding that in a case of difference of injuries between the inquest panchnama and the post-mortem report, the post-mortem report will prevail over the inquest panchnama. He would submit that the external injuries which were noted in the inquest panchanama in respect of swelling of the head, ligature mark of rope to neck, injuries to thigh and back are not noted by the Doctor in the post-mortem report. The inconsistency between the inquest report and the post-mortem report was highlighted and it was submitted that it has not received due consideration. It was, therefore, wholly illogical and not warranted by the evidence to convict the Appellant Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This means that the Appellant was not found guilty of cruelty under the said provision. He would further point out that reversing the verdict of the Trial Court, the High Court has acquitted the Appellant as also the other Accused of the charge Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The claim that it was a suicide by the deceased, was rejected.ĩ. The evidence of the Doctor, supported the case of murder. It was found that the deceased had been throttled. Rejecting the contentions of the Appellant and other Accused, the Trial Court convicted them. Charges were framed, as already mentioned. On, he received information by phone that deceased was serious and admitted to a hospital at Naldurg. Eight days prior to the incident, his sister informed him that Accused Javed visited her house and demanded half tola gold, dress and the amount. His sister convinced the deceased and brought her to the house of the Accused. The deceased disclosed about the maltreatment to his sister. Within two months, nobody from the Accused came to receive her. So, deceased decided to stay with her father for two months. She was threatened with murder if the demand was not fulfilled. They did not provide food to her and maltreated her. They insisted her to bring this from her parents and assaulted her. ![]() Three months prior to the incident, the deceased disclosed to the complainant and his wife that all the Accused were maltreating the deceased by insisting her to bring half tola gold, dress and Rs. The Accused maintained the deceased properly for the period of first eight months. Due to poverty, he could not provide half tola gold. The father of the Appellant lodged a complaint wherein it was inter alia alleged that the marriage of the Appellant and his deceased wife took place prior to two years as per custom. However, the High Court, by the impugned order, had convicted him for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant has also been acquitted of the offence Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2 to 4 stand acquitted of all the offences. On appeal filed by the Appellant and the other Accused, Accused Nos. The Trial Court convicted all the Accused for offences Under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This is besides being charged Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. They were altogether charged with offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally, the Appellant was Accused No. The Appellant, calls in question, his conviction Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC, for short) by the High Court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |