SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarvan @ Shravan Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2019

HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATALLAHABAD,LUCKNOWBENCH

A.F.R.

Reserved

Case:-CRIMINALAPPEALNo.-848of2014

Appellant:[email protected]

Respondent:-StateOfU.P.

CounselforAppellant:-O.P.Tiwari,AnujDayal

CounselforRespondent:-Govt.Advocate,R.B.S.Rathaur,RajeshKumar

Hon’bleDevendraKumarUpadhyaya,J.

Hon’bleRajeevSingh,J.

(DeliveredbyHon’bleRajeevSingh,J.)

1. Thepresentappealhasbeenfiledagainstthejudgmentandorderdated26thMay,2014passedbyAdditionalSessionsJudge,CourtNo.5,DistrictUnnaoinSessionTrialNo.669of2009arisingoutofCaseCrimeNo.1635of2009,P.S.Gangaghat,DistrictUnnao,convictingtheappellantunderSections304-BI.P.C.andSection4ofD.P.ActandsentencinghimtoundergolifeimprisonmentunderSections304-BI.P.C.withfineofRs.5000/-,indefaultwhereofhewasorderedtoundergofurtheroneyearimprisonment.AppellantwasalsosentencedtoundergotwoyearsimprisonmentunderSection4ofD.P.ActwithfineofRs.2000/-,indefaultofpaymentofwhich,furtherthreemonths’imprisonmentwasordered.Thesentences,soawarded,weretorunconcurrently.

2. Theappealhasbeenfiledonseveralgrounds,butlearnedcounselfortheappellantsubmittedthatheisonlychallengingthesentenceoftheoffenceunderSection304-BI.P.C.onthegroundthat;(i)thechargewasframedunderSection302I.P.C.andtheappellantwasacquitted,astheevidenceonrecorddoesnotdiscloseanyextra-ordinaryperverseoridolicactonthepartoftheappellant-accusedtotakeanextremeviewofthematter,(ii)atthetimeofcommissionoftheoffence,i.e.,on26.06.2009,appellant-accusedwasagedabout30yearsandasondate,heisagedabout40years;and(iii)hehasnopreviousrecordofcrime.

Learnedcounselfortheappellant,insupportofhiscontentionreliedonvariousjudgmentsoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtpassedinthecasesofSunilDattSharmaVs.State(GovernmentofNCTofDelhi),(2014)4SCC375andHemchandVs.StateofHaryana,(1994)6SCC727.

3. Ontheotherhand,learnedA.G.A.vehementlyopposedthegroundstakenbytheappellantonthepointofsentence.RelyingonthejudgmentoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtpassedinthecaseofTrimukhMarotiKirkanVs.StateofMaharashtra,(2006)10SCC681,hesubmittedthatinthepresentcase,thedeceasedwasfounddeadinthehouseoftheappellantand,therefore,nointerferenceisrequiredbythisCourt.

4. Learnedcounselforthecomplainant,ShriR.B.S.Rathaurwasalsoheard.HesupportedtheversionofthelearnedA.G.A.byrelyingonvariousjudgmentsoftheHon’bleSupremeCourtpassedinthecasesofShaileshJasvantbhaiAnr.Vs.StateofGujratOrs.,2006(2)SCC359,NarinderSinghAnr.Vs.StateofPunjabAnr.,2014(6)SCC466,RavadaSasikalaVs.StateofAndhraPradeshAnr.,2017(4)SCC546,StateofHimachalPradeshVs.NirmalaDevi,2017(7)SCC262andRajBalaVs.StateofHaryanaOrs.,(2016)1SCC463.

5. Thoughthefindingsoffacthavenotbeenchallengedonbehalfoftheappellant,butbeingtheCourtofappeal,weconsideritappropriatetogothroughtheentireevidenceandtheimpugnedorder.

Gistofthecaseisthatonthewrittencomplaintoftheinformant-RamCharan(P.W.1),F.I.R.waslodgedatP.S.Gangaghat,DistrictUnnaowiththeallegationthathisdaughterRamaDeviwasmarriedwiththeappellanton7thMarch,2009andaftermarriage,theprosecutrixwasvictimisedbytheappellant,brother-in-law(Arvan),mother-in-law(Vandana),sister-in-law(Geeta)anduncleoftheappellant(PrakashChandra).Hereceivedinformationon26.06.2009thatallthesaidpersonskilledhisdaughter.Whenhereachedonthespot,hefoundgrievousinjuriesonthebodyofthedeceasedandthenoseofthedeceasedwaschopped.OnthewrittencomplaintofP.W.1,theF.I.R.waslodgedasCaseCrimeNo.1635of2009underSections498-AandSection304-BI.P.C.andSection3/4ofD.P.Act,P.S.Gangaghat,DistrictUnnaoon26.06.2009at1.05p.m.TheinquestofthebodyofdeceasedwasconductedbytheNaibTehsildarat1.30p.m.anditwasconcludedat2.30p.m.P.W.1,RamCharanwasalsothewitnessofinquest.Atthetimeofpreparationoftheinquestreport,twoinjurieswerenoted,onethatwasontheleftlobeofthenoseandthesecondisligaturemarkovertheneck.TheinvestigationwasconductedandsiteplanwaspreparedandthestatementofP.W.1wasrecorded.AfterrecordingtheStatementsofinformantandotherwitnesses,achargesheetdated24.07.2009wassubmittedagainsttheappellantandmother-in-law,Smt.Vandana.ThecourtbelowhadtakencognizanceandthecasewascommittedbeforethecourtofSessions.Thereafter,itwasregisteredasSessionsTrialNo.669of2009andthechargewasframedagainsttheappellantandhismother,Smt.Vandanaon12.11.2009underSections498-AandSection304-BI.P.C.andSection3/4ofD.P.Act.AdditionalchargewasframedunderSection302readwithSection34I.P.C.on22.12.2010.Theappellantdeniedthechargesandrequestedfortrial.Duringthecourseoftrial,ninewitnesseswereplacedbytheprosecution.Thereafter,statementoftheappellantwasrecordedunderSection313Cr.P.C.bythetrialcourt.AppellantplacedoneArunKumarasD.W.1andalsosubmittedmedicalprescriptionsofthedeceasedandherphotographs.

6. Aftertakingtheevidences,broughtonrecord,intoconsideration,thetrialcourtpassedtheimpugnedjudgmentacquittingtheappellantunderSection302readwithSection34I.P.C.andconvictinghimunderSection304-BandSection498-AI.P.C.andSection3/4D.P.Act.Hence,thepresentappeal.

Thedeceaseddiedwithinlessthansevenyearsofhermarriagewithunnaturaldeath,therefore,thetrialcourtiscorrectinconcludingthattheprosecutionhasbeensuccessfulinprovinghiscaseagainsttheappellant.

7. Now,theonlyquestionofappropriatesentenceremainsbeforeusandwhiledealingwiththesaidquestion,wewillhavetoconsiderthelawonthepointofsentencetobeinflictedincasesunderSection304-BI.P.C.

Hon’bletheApexCourtinthecaseofHemChand(supra),inparagraph7ofthejudgment,hasheldasunder:-

“Nowcomingtothequestionofsentence,itcanbeseenthatSection304BI.P.C.laysdownthat:

“Whoevercommitsdowrydeathshallbepunishedwithimprisonmentforatermwhichshallnotbelessthansevenyearsbutwhichmayextendtoimprisonmentforlife.”

Thepointforconsiderationiswhethertheextremepunishmentofimprisonmentforlifeiswarrantedintheinstantcase.AreadingofSection304BI.P.C.wouldshowthatwhenaquestionariseswhetherapersonhascommittedtheoffenceofdowrydeathofawomanthatallthatisnecessaryisitshouldbeshownthatsoonbeforeherunnaturaldeath,whichtookplacewithinsevenyearsofthemarriage,thedeceasedhadbeensubjected,bysuchperson,tocrueltyorharassmentfororinconnectionwithdemandfordowry.Ifthatisshownthenthecourtshallpresumethatsuchapersonhascausedthedowrydeath.Itcanthereforebeseenthatirrespectiveofthefactwhethersuchpersonisdirectlyresponsibleforthedeathofthedeceasedornotbyvirtueofthepresumption,heisdeemedtohavecommittedthedowrydeathifthereweresuchcrueltyorharassmentandthatiftheunnaturaldeathhasoccurredwithinsevenyearsfromthedateofmarriage.LikewisethereisapresumptionunderSection113BoftheEvidenceActastothedowrydeath.Itlaysdownthatthecourtshallpresumethatthepersonwhohassubjectedthedeceasedwifetocrueltybeforeherdeathshallpresumetohavecausedthedowrydeathifitisshownthatbeforeherdeath,suchwomanhadbeensubjected,bytheaccused,tocrueltyorharassmentinconnectionwithanydemandfordowry.PracticallythisisthepresumptionthathasbeenincorporatedinSection304BI.P.C.also.Itcanthereforebeseenthatirrespectiveofthefactwhethertheaccusedhasanydirectconnectionwiththedeathornot,heshallbepresumedtohavecommittedthedowrydeathprovidedtheotherrequirementsmentionedabovearesatisfied.”

8. RelyingonthejudgmentpassedbytheHon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSunilDuttSharma(supra),itisvehementlycontendedbythelearnedcounselfortheappellantthatitiswellsettledlawthatthecourtsareobligedtorespectthelegislativemandateinthematterofawardingofsentencesinallsuchcases.Inpara5ofthesaidjudgment,Hon’bleSupremeCourthasconsideredthepointofsentenceindetailandhasobservedinpara5asunder:-

“ThepowerandauthorityconferredbyuseofthedifferentexpressionsnoticedaboveindicatetheenormousdiscretionvestedintheCourtsinsentencinganoffenderwhohasbeenfoundguiltyofcommissionofanyparticularoffence.Nowhere,eitherinSectionthePenalCodeorinanyotherlawinforce,anyprescriptionornormorevenguidelinesgoverningtheexerciseofthevastdiscretioninthematterofsentencinghasbeenlaiddownexceptperhaps,Section354(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973which,inter-alia,requiresthejudgmentofaCourttostatethereasonsforthesentenceawardedwhenthepunishmentprescribedisimprisonmentforatermofyears.Intheabovesituation,naturally,thesentencingpowerhasbeenamatterofseriousacademicandjudicialdebatetodiscernanobjectiveandrationalbasisfortheexerciseofthepowerandtoevolvesoundjurisprudentialprinciplesgoverningtheexercisethereof.”

9. WehavealsoconsideredtheargumentsadvancedbythelearnedA.G.AandShriR.B.S.Rathaurappearingforthecomplainant.

10. InthecaseofTrimukhMarotiKirkan(supra)relieduponbythelearnedA.G.A.,convictionunderSection302I.P.C.wasupheldbygivingthepunishmentoflifeimprisonment.Theaforesaidlawisnotapplicableinthepresentcase,asconvictioninthepresentcaseisunderSection304-BI.P.C.andminimumpunishmentprovidedissevenyears,buttheappellantissentencedmaximumpunishmentprescribedinSection304-BI.P.C.,i.e.,lifeimprisonment.

11. ThecaseofShaileshJasvantbhaiAnr.(supra)relieduponbylearnedcounselforthecomplainantisacaseunderSections307,Section324,Section504readwithSection114I.P.C.andtheaccusedpersonswereconvictedinallSectionsandsentencedtoundergo10years’rigorousimprisonmentwithfineunderSections307andSection114I.P.C.NoseparatesentencewasgiveninSection324readwithSection114I.P.C.Inappeal,HighCourtupheldtheconvictionrecordedbythetrialcourt,butreducedthesentencetotheperiodundergoneandawardedcompensation.AppealfiledagainstthesaidorderwasallowedbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtandthematterwasremittedforfreshconsiderationonthegroundthattheaccusedwereinvolvedinnineothercasesandbailofoneoftheaccusedwasalsorejectedforbreachofconditions.Therefore,thefactsofthesaidcasearenotapplicableinthepresentcase.

FurtherreliancehasbeenplacedbythelearnedcounselforthecomplainantonthejudgmentpassedbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofNarinderSingh(supra).Initially,thecasewasregisteredagainsttheaccusedpersonsunderSections307,Section324,Section323andSection34I.P.C.andlateron,onthebasisofcompromise,apetitionwasfiledbeforetheHighCourtforquashingoftheentireproceedings,buttheHighCourthadrefusedtoexerciseitsextraordinarydiscretioninvokingtheprovisionsofSection482oftheCodeonthegroundthatfourinjuriesweresufferedbythecomplainantandasperthereportofthedoctor,injuryno.3wasseriousinnature.AgainstthejudgmentandorderoftheHighCourt,acriminalappealwaspreferredwhichwasallowedbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtbyquashingtheF.I.R.No.121dated14thJuly,2010onthebasisofcompromise.Therefore,aforesaidfactsalsodonothaveanyrelevancywiththepresentcase.

InthecaseofRavadaSasikala(supra),F.I.R.wasregisteredonthestatementofinjuredunderSections448andSection30I.P.C.andAssistantSessionsJudgedidnotfindtheaccusedguiltyunderSection307I.P.C.,butheldhimguiltyunderSections326andSection448I.P.C.AtthetimeofhearingofthesentenceunderSection235(2)Cr.P.C.,theconvictpleadedformercyonthegroundofhisoldagedparentsandeconomicstatus.TrialJudgesentencedhimtosufferrigorousimprisonmentforoneyearanddirectedtopayafindofRs.5000/-withthedefaultclauseunderSection326I.P.C.andsentencedhimtopayasumofRs.1000/-fortheoffenceunderSection448I.P.C.withadefaultclause.StateGovernmentpreferredappealunderSection377(1)Cr.P.C.beforetheHighCourtforenhancementofthesentence.Beingaggrievedbythejudgmentofconvictionandorderofsentence,theaccusedhadalsopreferredcriminalappealbeforetheSessionsJudge,whichwaslaterontransferredtotheHighCourt.BoththeappealswereheardbythelearnedSingleJudge,whoconcurredwiththeviewtakenbytheTrialJudgeasregardstheconviction.However,whiledealingwiththequantumofsentence,learnedSingleJudgeopinedtomodifythesentenceofimprisonmentimposedbythetrialcourtfortheoffenceunderSection326I.P.C.totheperiodwhichtheaccusedhadalreadyundergonewhilemaintainingthesentenceoffineforboththeoffences.AppealfiledagainstthesaidjudgmentwasallowedbytheHon’bleApexCourtonthegroundthatdespitethemedicalevidenceofacidattackontheyounggirlandthecircumstanceshavingbroughthomebycogentevidenceandtheconvictionisgiventhestampofapproval,therewasnojustificationtoreducethesentencetotheperiodalreadyundergone.

Thefactsandthelawdecidedintheaforesaidcase,thus,donothaveanyapplicabilitytothefactsofthepresentcase.

FactsofthecaseofStateofHimachalPradeshVs.NirmalaDevi(supra)areagainnotapplicabletothefactsofthepresentcase,asinthesaidcase,thetrialcourtconvictedtheaccusedpersonunderSections328,Section307andSection392I.P.C.readwithSection34I.P.C.andshewasinflictedwiththeimprisonmentofsimpleimprisonmentfortheperiodoftwoyearsandfineofRs.2000/-,indefaultofpaymentofwhich,shehadtoundergoforafurtherperiodofthreemonths,fortheoffenceeachpunishableunderSections328,Section307andSection392I.P.C.withthedirectionthatallthesubstantivesentencesweretorunconcurrently.FineofRs.6000/-wasalsodirectedtobepaidtothecomplainantsascompensationandasumofRs.12,000/-,whichwasrecoveredfromtheaccusedwasalsoorderedtobereleasedtothecomplainant.Intheappealfiledagainstthesaidjudgment,theHighCourt,however,affirmedtheconviction,butinsofarasawardofsentencewasconcerned,itwasmodifiedbyremovingimprisonmentpartofthesentenceandsubstitutingthesamewithfinesimpliciterofRs.30,000/-.Hon’bleSupremeCourtallowedtheappealwiththeobservationthatmaximumsentenceunderSection328I.P.C.istenyears,underSection392I.P.C.isfourteenyearsandunderSection307,maximumpunishmentistenyearsandincaseofhurt,itislifeimprisonmentandasthetrialcourtwascautiousatthetimeofsentencingtheaccused,therefore,theorderoftheHighCourtmodifyingthesentenceisunsustainable.

LearnedcounselforthecomplainantalsoreliedonthecaseofRajBala(supra),whereintheaccusedpersonswereconvictedunderSection306I.P.C.toundergorigorousimprisonmentforaperiodofthreeyearseachwiththefineofRs.3000/-eachandindefaultofpaymentthereof,toundergorigorousimprisonmentforsixmonths.Beingaggrievedbythesaidjudgmentofconvictionandorderofsentence,theaccusedpersonspreferredacriminalappealbeforetheHighCourt.Theinformantalsopreferredarevisionforconversionofthecriminaloffence,butthesamedidnotfindfavourwiththeHighCourtand,accordingly,itwasdismissed.Insofarasthecriminalappealwasconcerned,theHighCourtgavethestampofapprovaltotheconviction,butasregardsthequantumofsentenceofimprisonmentwasconcerned,referringtothejailcustodycertificates,asperwhicheachoftheappellantshadundergoneimprisonmentforaperiodoffourmonthsand20days,andthataccusedwerenotfoundtobeinvolvedinanyothercriminalcase,thelearnedSingleJudgeheldthatnousefulpurposewouldbeservedbysendingtheappellantsbacktojailforremainingsentencesofimprisonmentandendsofjusticewouldbeamplymetiftheirsubstantivesentencesofimprisonmentarereducedtotheonealreadyundergonebythem.ThereductionofsentencewastheprimarygrievanceintheappealfiledagainsttheorderoftheHighCourtandtheHon’bleSupremeCourtheldthattheapproachoftheHighCourt,asthereasoningwouldshow,reflectsmoreofacasualandfancifulone,ratherthanjustone,andsetasidetheorderoftheHighCourtandrestoredtheconvictionandorderofsentenceofthetrialcourt.Hence,thesefactsareagainnotapplicabletothefactsofthepresentcase.

12. Thus,wefindnoforceintheargumentsadvancedbythelearnedcounselfortheoppositeparties.

13. UndertheprovisionsofSection304-BI.P.C.,theminimumpunishmentprovidedissevenyearsandmaximumpunishmentislifeimprisonment.Trialcourthasawardedthelifeimprisonmentwithoutgivinganylogicalfinding.ItiswellsettledbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtthatthejustpunishmentisthecollectivecryofthesociety.Whilethecollectivecryhastobekeptintheuppermostinthemind,simultaneouslytheprincipleofproportionalitybetweenthecrimeandpunishmentcannotbetotallybrushedaside.Theprincipleofjustpunishmentisabedrockofsentencinginrespectofcriminaloffence.Allpunishmentshouldnotbedisproportionatelyexcessive.TheconceptofproportionalitylaysasignificantdiscretiontotheJudge,butthesamehastobeoccupiedbycertainprinciples.

14. Hon’bletheApexCourtinthecaseofSectionG.V.Siddarameshv.StateofKarnatakareportedin(2010)3SCC152hasobservedthatawardingtheextremepunishmentofimprisonmentforlifeshouldbeusedinrarecasesandnotineverycase.Relevantparagraph30ofthejudgmentreadsasunder:-

“Onthepointofsentence,learnedCounselfortheappellantpointedoutthattheappellantisinjailformorethansixyears.Theappellantwasyoungatthetimeofincidentandtherefore,thesentenceawardedbythetrialcourtandconfirmedbytheHighCourtmaybemodified.Insofarassentencingunderthesectionisconcerned,athreeJudgeBenchofthisCourtinthecaseofHemchandv.StateofHaryana[(1994)6SCC727]hasobservedthat:

“Section304Bmerelyraisesapresumptionofdowrydeathandlaysdownthattheminimumsentenceshouldbe7years,butitmayextendtoimprisonmentforlife.Therefore,awardingtheextremepunishmentofimprisonmentforlifeshouldbeusedinrarecasesandnotineverycase.”

Keepinginviewthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,thisCourtreducedthesentencefromlifeimprisonmentawardedbytheHighCourtto10yearsR.I.ontheaboveprinciple.”

15. ThetrialcourthasalsowronglyawardedsentencefortheoffenceunderSection498-AI.P.C..TheoffenceunderSection498-AI.P.C.isincludedintheoffenceunderSection304-BI.P.C.,therefore,therewasnoneedtopassseparatesentenceunderSection498-AI.P.C.IthasbeensoheldbyHon’bletheApexCourtinthecaseofSmt.ShantiAnr.Vs.StateofHaryanareportedin(1991)1SCC371.Lastlinesofparagraph5readsasunder:-

“5………ButfromthepointofviewofpracticeandprocedureandtoavoidtechnicaldefectsitisnecessaryinsuchcasestoframechargesunderboththesectionsandifthecaseisestablishedtheycanbeconvictedunderboththesectionsbutnoseparatesentenceneedbeawardedunderSection498-AinviewofthesubstantivesentencebeingawardedforthemajoroffenceunderSection304-B.”

16. ThecaseofSunilDuttSharma(Supra)wasalsoacaseofdowrydeath.Inthatcase,thecauseofdeathwasstrangulationandHon’bleSupremeCourtwasoftheviewthatasentenceof10yearsrigorousimprisonmentwouldbeappropriate.

17. Hon’bleSupremeCourtinthecaseofStateofRajasthanVs.MohanLal,AIR2018SC3564hasclearlyheldthattheCourtswillhavetotakeintoaccountcertainprincipleswhileexercisingtheirdiscretioninsentencing,suchasproportionality,deterrenceandrehabilitation.Relevantportionisreproducedhereinbelow:

“Inaproportionalityanalysis,itisnecessarytoassesstheseriousnessofanoffenceinordertodeterminethecommensuratepunishmentfortheoffender.Theseriousnessofanoffencedepends,apartfromotherthings,alsouponitsharmfulness.Theprinciplegoverningtheimpositionofpunishmentwilldependuponthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.However,thesentenceshouldbeappropriate,adequate,just,proportionateandcommensuratewiththenatureandgravityofthecrimeandthemannerinwhichthecrimeiscommitted.Thegravityofthecrime,motiveforthecrime,natureofthecrimeandallotherattendingcircumstanceshavetobeborneinmindwhileimposingthesentence.TheCourtcannotaffordtobecasualwhileimposingthesentence,inasmuchasboththecrimeandthecriminalareequallyimportantinthesentencingprocess.TheCourtsmustseethatthepublicdoesnotloseconfidenceinthejudicialsystem.Imposinginadequatesentenceswilldomoreharmtothejusticesystemandmayleadtoastatewherethevictimlosesconfidenceinthejudicialsystemandresorttoprivatevengeance.”

18. Keepinginviewtheaforementionedlegalposition,weareoftheconsideredviewthatforappellant,sentenceoftenyearsrigorousimprisonmentwouldbeanadequatesentencetomeettheendsofjustice.NoseparatesentenceneedstobeinflictedfortheoffenceunderSection498-AI.P.C.

19. Thus,thisappealdeservestobepartlyal[email protected]ShravanKumarunderSection304-BI.P.C.isherebyconfirmed.However,thesentenceofimprisonmentforlifeinflictedbythetrialcourtisherebyreducedtoaperiodoftenyears.TheconvictionandsentenceinflictedontheappellantbythetrialcourtfortheoffenceunderSection4oftheDowryProhibitionActisalsoherebyconfirmed.Thesentenceawardedtoappellantindefaultofpaymentoffinealsostandsconfirmed.Allthesentencesshallrunconcurrently.

20. Appellant,[email protected]bythisCourt.

21.Officeisdirectedtocommunicatethisorderforthwithtothecourtconcernedandtosendbackthelowercourtrecordalongwithcopyofthejudgmenttoensurecompliance.

OrderDate:-30/5/19

VKS

 

 

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation