SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State Of Mah. Thru. P.S.O vs Ramabai Wamanrao Khanorkar & 2 Ors on 22 December, 2017

1 apeal552.07.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.552 OF 2007
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.561 OF 2007

1) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.552 OF 2007 :

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Nagbhid,
District Chandrapur. ………. APPELLANT

// VERSUS //

1.Ramabai w/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 50 years,

2.Ajay s/o.Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 29 years, Occ.Business,
r/o.Korpana.

3.Santosh w/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 33 years.

All r/o. Talodhi (Balapur), Tq.
Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur. ………. RESPONDENTS

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
2 apeal552.07.odt

Mr.N.S.Rao, A.P.P. for Appellant/State.
Mr.R.P.Joshi, Advocate for Respondents.

2) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.561 OF 2007 :

1.Ramabai wd/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 52 years,

2.Ajay s/o.Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 31 years, Occ.Business..

3.Santosh w/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar,
Aged about 35 years.

All r/o. Village Talodhi (Balapur), Tq.
Nagbhid, Distt. Chandrapur. ………. APPELLANT

// VERSUS //

State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Nagbhid,
District Chandrapur. ………. RESPONDENT

Mr.R.P.Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.N.S.Rao, A.P.P. for the Respondent.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
3 apeal552.07.odt

************
Date of reserving the Judgment : 11.12.2017.
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 22.12.2017.
************

CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :

1. Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2007 is filed by the State

against the Judgment of acquittal of respondents/accused for the

offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal

Code. Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2007 is filed by the

appellants/accused against their conviction for the offence

punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2. The case of prosecution against the

appellants/respondents (accused), in short, is as under :

Marriage of deceased Sarika was performed with

accused no.2 Ajay s/o. Wamanrao Khanorkar on 28.5.2005. It was a

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
4 apeal552.07.odt

settled marriage on the mediation of one Suresh Ahirkar. At the time

of marriage, accused no.3 Santosh s/o.Wamanrao Khanorka caused

nuisance at the marriage pendal on some trivial ground. There was

reception at the house of accused. At that time, parents of deceased

were insulted. Deceased was co-habitating with her husband/accused

no.2 Ajay. At the time of festival of Watsavitri, father of deceased

went to the house of accused. At that time, deceased Sarika was

appearing to be disappointed. Whenever, she used to talk on phone,

she appeared to be disappointed.

3. For the festival of Akhadi, Sarika was taken to her

parent’s house by her brother Sarang. She was reached to the house

of accused after Akhadi. Accused were ill-treating the deceased for

dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 12.9.2005, Sarika died due to burning.

4. Accused no.3 Santosh immediately lodged report about

burning of deceased. Thereafter, her parents reached to the house of

accused. Father of deceased namely Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth

(PW-7) lodged report (Exh.59) in Police Station, Nagbhid, District

Chandrapur. On his report, offence punishable under Section 304-B

r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. On the

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
5 apeal552.07.odt

insistence of complainant Wasudeo, again offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.

5. PSI Rajendra Sukhlal Kohare (PW-13) investigated some

part of crime. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to API

Sheikh. Both the Investigating Officers investigated the crime as

usual. After completing investigation, submitted charge sheet to the

Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid. The Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Nagbhid committed the case to the Court of

Sessions at Chandrapur for trial.

6. Charge was framed at Exh.32 for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 498-A, 304-B, 201 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Defence of the accused appears to be of total denial and

false implication. It is the defence of the accused that the deceased

committed suicide. Prosecution has examined the following

witnesses.

1) Sandeep Bhayyaji Waranasiwar (PW-1) (Exh.40).

2) Vasant Balaji Pakmode (PW-2) (Exh.42).

3) Sonabai Ratanlal Baig (PW-3) (Exh.45).

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
6 apeal552.07.odt

4) Ajay Krushnarao Bhagwatwar (PW-4) (Exh.46).

5) Pallavi Rajendra Rahate (PW-5) (Exh.51).

6) Vasant Mahadeoro Harde (PW-6) (Exh.52).

7) Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth (PW-7) (Exh.58).

8) Dr.Pramod Bhayyaji Khandate (PW-8) (Exh.61).

9) Manda Ramesh Deshmukh (PW-9) (Exh.69).

10) Ranjit Narayan Shendre (PW-10) (Exh.75).

11) Babybai Wasudeorao Samarth (PW-11) (Exh.77).

12) Bhaskar Vithobaji Lanjewar (PW-12) (Exh.84).

13) Rajendra Sukhlal Kohare (PW-13) (Exh.119).

14) Santosh Rustamrao Tale (PW-14) (Exh.139).

15) Anwar Mehaboob Sheikh (PW-15) (Exh.141).

7. Learned trial Court recorded statements of witnesses

u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing prosecution

and defence, accused nos. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. They

are also convicted under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, failing which to undergo simple

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
7 apeal552.07.odt

imprisonment for one month. The accused nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian

Penal Code.

8. Being aggrieved by the sentence afore-mentioned, the

appellants/accused have filed Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2007. The

State has filed Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2007 against acquittal of

appellants/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Heard Mr.R.P.Joshi, learned Counsel for the accused. He

has submitted that there is no evidence against the

appellants/accused to convict them for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they

are rightly acquitted by the trial Court.

10. Learned Counsel has pointed out evidence of parents of

deceased i.e. Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth (PW-7) – father of

deceased and Babybai Wasudeorao Samarth (PW-11) – mother of

deceased and one Manda Ramesh Deshmukh (PW-9). Learned

Counsel has pointed out material omissions in their evidence.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

8 apeal552.07.odt

Learned Counsel has submitted that there is material omission in

respect of demand of dowry.

11. Learned Counsel has submitted that prosecution has

failed to prove that accused persons were demanding dowry and on

that count, they were ill-treating the deceased. Learned Counsel has

submitted that material ingredients of Section 304-B of the Indian

Penal Code are not proved by the prosecution. Therefore,

appellant/accused are wrongly convicted by the trial Court.

12. Learned Counsel has submitted that prosecution has to

prove each and every ingredient of Section 304-B and 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code, but prosecution has failed to prove that death of

deceased was due to demand of dowry. Hence, prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 304-B

and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

13. Learned Counsel for the appellants/accused has pointed

out the Judgments in the cases of Pratap Singh and another .vs.

State of M.P. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 624 and Bakshish Ram

and another .vs. State and Punjab reported in (2013) 4 SCC 131.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

9 apeal552.07.odt

14. At last, the learned Counsel has submitted that there is

no evidence to show that the appellants/accused ill-treated the

deceased on account of demand of dowry and therefore, the

deceased has committed suicide. Learned trial Court has wrongly

convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Section

304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. Hence, the impugned Judgment is liable to

be quashed and set aside.

15. Heard Mr.N.S.Rao, learned A.P.P. for the State. He has

submitted that deceased was in the custody of accused. Deceased

died unnatural death within a short period of five months. Deceased

died due to burns. Father and mother of the deceased and one

independent witness Manda (PW-9) have stated about demand of

dowry. Accused persons have committed murder of deceased.

Learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused of the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned

A.P.P. has submitted that the appeal filed by the State be allowed

and appeal filed by the accused be dismissed.

16. Perused the evidence on record and the impugned

Judgment. From the perusal of evidence, it is clear that none of the

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
10 apeal552.07.odt

witnesses have stated anything against the accused for committing

murder of deceased. As per the evidence on record, at the time of

incident, accused no.2 Ajay was not present. He had gone to

Amravati. Accused no.1 Ramabai Khanorkar – mother-in-law and

accused no.3 Santosh Khanorkar – brother-in-law of deceased were

present. Ranjit Narayan Shendre (PW-10) was also residing in the

house of accused. He was servant of accused persons.

17. As per the evidence of Ranjit Shendre (PW-10), in the

night of incident, there was immersion of Lord Ganesh. After

immersion, in the night at about 00.00 hours, they went to sleep. He

himself, Pallavi Rajendra Rahate (PW-5), accused nos. 1 and 3 were

sleeping in drawing room. Deceased was sleeping in her bed room.

In the morning, accused no.3 Santosh was at the pan shop. Accused

no.1 Ramabai disclosed him that Sarika had left for washing clothes.

He searched deceased Sarika, but could not find her. Accused no.1

Ramabai asked him to search Sarika at the house of Kaushalyabai.

He went to the house of Kaushalyabai, but he did not find Sarika.

Thereafter, he noticed smoke from one room of house. They tried to

open door of the room, but it was closed from inside. Thereafter, he

along with accused no.1 Ramabai anyhow entered inside the room.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

11 apeal552.07.odt

They pulled Godrej almirah in the house and noticed that deceased

Sarika was completely burnt. He raised alarm. He went running

towards accused no.3 Santosh. Accused no.3 Santosh came running

to the house. At that time, deceased Sarika was already dead.

Immediately accused no.3 Santosh informed police by lodging report.

18. Evidence of parents of deceased show that they reached

to the house of accused when they received information about the

incident. There is no evidence to show that accused persons have

committed murder of deceased.

19. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Dr.Pramod

Bhayyaji Khandate (PW-8), deceased died due to burn injuries. As

per his evidence, he conducted post mortem on the dead body of

Sarika. She had sustained 92 % burn injuries. Cause of death was

due to burns. There is no dispute about the death of deceased due to

burn injuries. There is no dispute that deceased was married with

accused no.2 Ajay on 28.5.2005. Deceased died on 12.9.2005. Death

was within 4-5 months from the date of marriage. Therefore, it is

clear that the deceased died within seven years from the date of

marriage. Her death was also unnatural.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

12 apeal552.07.odt

20. Appellants are convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section

304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read as under :

Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code :

304B. Dowry death.–

(1) 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 purpose 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.]

Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code :

[498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.–

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

13 apeal552.07.odt

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, “cruelty”
means–

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.]

21. In order to seek conviction under Section 304-B of the

Indian Penal Code against the accused persons for the offence of

dowry death, prosecution is obliged to prove that : a) 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,

b) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
14 apeal552.07.odt

husband or any relative of her husband, c) such cruelty or

harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of

dowry, d) such cruelty or harassment to the deceased should have

been subjected soon before her death.

22. There is no dispute that the deceased died unnatural

death due to burning. There is no dispute that the deceased died

within a period of five months from the date of marriage. Dispute is

about only demand of dowry and cruelty on account of demand of

dowry.

23. Prosecution has not proved all the ingredients of Section

304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has miserably failed to

prove that there was any cruelty by any of the accused persons on

account of demand of dowry and therefore, the deceased has

committed suicide.

24. Wasudeo Sakharam Samarth (PW-7) – father of

deceased has stated in his evidence that marriage of his daughter

Sarika was performed with accused Ajay on 28.5.2005. Thereafter,

she came to his house only for one time at the time of Akhadi

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
15 apeal552.07.odt

festival. He did not state anything about any talk he had with

deceased at the time of Akhadi festival. He has stated in his evidence

that the accused were ill-treating the deceased for demand of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Except this, he has not stated anything more.

25. The evidence of Wasudeo in respect of cruelty by

accused on account of demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- is material

omission brought in his cross-examination. It is proved by the

Investigation Officer. In his cross-examination, Wasudeo (PW-7) has

stated as under :

” At the time of settlement of the marriage, none of the

accused had made any demand. The marriage of accused

no.3 Santosh was not settled. Ultimately, the marriage of

accused no.2 and Sarika was solemnized on 28.5.2005.

At the time of marriage, I had given articles to my

daughter Sarika as per my wish.”

26. He has further stated in his cross-examination that “he

had also stated to the police that the accused were ill-treating

deceased Sarika on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 1 Lakh. He

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
16 apeal552.07.odt

cannot assign any reason as to why all these are not findings placed

in his statement before the police so also report”.

27. Babybai Wasudeorao Samarth (PW-11) – mother of

deceased has stated in her evidence that accused were demanding

Rs.1,00,000/- and on that count, they were ill-treating the deceased.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that ” I had also stated to

police in my statement as to demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the

accused. It is not in my statement.”

28. The evidence of father and mother of deceased in respect

of demand of dowry is nothing but omission. Therefore, it is clear

that they made improvements in their evidence before the Court.

Evidence of Manda Deshmukh (PW-9) shows that she had gone to

the house of accused at the time of Gokul Ashtmi. At that time,

deceased had told her that her mother-in-law and accused no.2

Ajay/her husband were ill-treating her. Accused no.2 Ajay was

stating that Sarika had not brought dowry. Manda Deshmukh (PW-

9) has stated in her evidence that after returning to village she called

mother of deceased Sarika and asked her to contact Sarika and told

her that Sarika is ill-treated by accused.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

17 apeal552.07.odt

29. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of Manda (PW-

9) though is supported by mother of deceased Babybai Samarth (PW-

11) by stating that Manda told her about cruelty by accused on

account of demand of dowry, but it is brought on record as a

material omission.

30. Except evidence of Wasudeo Samarth (PW-7), Manda

Deshmukh (PW-9) and Babybai Samarth (PW-11), there is no other

evidence by the side of prosecution to show demand of dowry by the

accused persons and cruelty on that count. The evidence in respect of

demand of dowry stated by father and mother of deceased and one

Manda is nothing but material improvement. Moreover, admission of

Wasudeo (PW-7) in his cross-examination shows that the marriage of

his daughter with accused no.2 Ajay was settled and at the time of

settlement of marriage, none of the accused persons made any

demand of dowry. This itself shows that there was no any demand

of dowry by the accused persons. Hence, the material ingredient sof

Section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code requiring death of

deceased due to cruelty on account of demand of dowry is not

proved by prosecution.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

18 apeal552.07.odt

31. Evidence of Ranjit Shendre (PW-10) shows that he was

compelled to give statement against the accused persons. He was

detained in Police Station for about 15 days. As per his evidence, the

deceased was hot tempered. She was always threatening to commit

suicide. Therefore, possibility of committing suicide by the deceased

due to some household problems cannot be ruled out.

32. Evidence of Investigating Officer supports the contention

of Ranjit Shendre (PW-10) that he was detained in Police Station and

was compelled to give statement against the accused. The cross-

examination of API Anwar Mehboob Sheikh (PW-15) shows that

complainant/father of deceased pressurized him to register offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the

accused. A question was asked by the defence side to this witness

and he replied. The question and the answer is reproduced as

under :

“Question : Till the recording of statement of Ranjeet

Shendre you were not having any evidence relating to

offence under S.302 and 201 of I.P.C. ?

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

19 apeal552.07.odt

Answer : The witness is taking time to answer and stating

repeatedly that papers were kept before me on 20-9-05 and

on reading statement of Ranjeet Shendre offence under

Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. came to be added. I had

recorded the statements of material relatives of the deceased

after I had taken up investigation. I had recorded the

statement of Babybai Samarth. I had recorded the said

statement on 26.9.07. There is no contention as to the

demand of Rs.1 Lac on telephone. ”

33. Investigating Officer API Anwar Sheikh (PW-15) has

admitted that statement of Ranjit was recorded by PSI Kohare on

12.9.2005 and thereafter, his statement was recorded on 19.9.2005.

It was also recorded by PSI Kohare. The statements of Babybai

Samarth and other witnesses were recorded by PSI Kohare on

12.9.2005. Again statements were recorded on 26.9.2007 by

Investigating Officer API Sheikh. Statements recorded by API Kohare

are not produced on record. Therefore, it appears that prosecution

has suppressed material fact from the Court.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

20 apeal552.07.odt

34. There is no evidence to show that the accused persons

committed murder of deceased Sarika. There is no evidence to show

that death of Sarika was dowry death as defined under Section 304-B

and cruelty u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The material

ingredients of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are

not proved by prosecution.

35. Learned Counsel for the appellants/accused Mr.R.P.Joshi

has pointed out the decision in the case of Bakshish Ram and another

.vs. State of Punjab (cited supra). It is held by Hon’ble Supreme

Court that ” It is but natural that being the mother of deceased if she

had come across any harassment or ill-treatment of her daughter in

connection with demands for dowry soon before her daughter’s

death, she could have explained the same in her evidence. She had

neither asserted nor narrated any complaint from her daughter about

harassment or ill-treatment by the appellants. The mother of the

deceased has not stated anything in her evidence with regard to

harassment or mal-treatment of the deceased by the appellants on

the basis of her personal knowledge………….. Hence, the evidence is

not helpful insofar as the allegation of harassment and maltreatment

in relation to demand of dowry is concerned. It is further held that

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
21 apeal552.07.odt

prosecution is obliged to show that soon before occurrence, there

was cruelty or harassment in relation to dowry demand and only in

that case presumption u/s.113-B of the Evidence Act operate.”

36. In the present case, father and mother of the deceased

have stated regarding demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by accused persons,

but those are material omissions proved by the Investigating Officer.

Therefore, there is no evidence to show that there was any demand

of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. There is no evidence of cruelty. Not a

single neighbour of accused examined by the prosecution to show

cruelty by the accused persons. On the other hand, Wasudeo (PW-7),

father of deceased has stated in his evidence that it was a settled

marriage. At the time of settlement of marriage, accused persons did

not demand any dowry. Therefore, material ingredients of Section

304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code are not made out by

Prosecution.

37. Learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed out

decision in the case of Pratap Singh and another .vs. State of M.P.

(cited supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that

“Investigating Officer has failed to file statements of two independent

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
22 apeal552.07.odt

eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure along with the charge sheet and also not examined them

in the Court, observed that, for such lapses, adverse inference needs

to be drawn.” In the present case also, prosecution has suppressed

the earlier statement recorded by PSI Kohare. Statements are

intentionally not produced with the charge sheet and material facts

are suppressed from the Court.

38. All the above discussion clearly shows that prosecution

has failed to prove the material ingredients of Sections 304-B and

498-A of the Indian Penal Code that deceased Sarika was ill-treated

and subjected to cruelty by accused persons on account of demand of

dowry. Therefore, it is clear that accused are wrongly convicted by

trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and

498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence by the

side of prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we proceed to pass the following

order.

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

23 apeal552.07.odt

// ORDER //

Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2007 filed by the

State is hereby dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2007 filed by

appellants/accused is hereby allowed.

Appellants/accused are hereby acquitted of

the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A

r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall

stand cancelled.

Fine amount, if paid, be refunded by the

appellants/accused.

The record and proceedings be sent back to

the trial Court.

JUDGE JUDGE

[jaiswal]

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::
24 apeal552.07.odt

::: Uploaded on – 04/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/01/2018 23:33:07 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh