SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Surendra Sen vs State on 10 January, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 817/2015

Surendra Sen
—-Appellant
Versus
State
—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh
Mr. Kaushal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

10/01/2019

(BY THE COURT : PER HON’BLE MEHTA, J.)

The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as below

vide judgment dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan in

Sessions Case No.2/2013.

S.No. Offence for which Sentence awarded
convicted
1. 302 IPC Life term imprisonment with a
fine of Rs.2000/- and in default
of payment fine, further to
undergo two months’ simple
imprisonment
2. 498-A IPC Three years’ rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of
payment fine, further to undergo
two months’ simple imprisonment
(2 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the

appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2)

of the CrPC.

Succinctly stated, facts relevant and germane for

deciding the appeal are summarized hereinbelow.

Sub-Inspector Sallu Khan posted at Police Station

Mahamandir, Jodhpur recorded a Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of Smt.

Sangeeta, wife of the appellant herein, in the emergency ward at

the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on 24.07.2011 at 11.30

p.m. In the said statement, Smt. Sangeeta divulged that she was

married to Surendra Sen, the appellant herein, about nine years

ago. She had a son named Akash from the wedlock with the

appellant. Her husband was doing the job of barber in the BZS

Colony, Jodhpur. In the very same night at about 8-9 o’clock, she

lit a lamp for offering prayers and threw the burning matchstick on

the floor. Kerosine had spilled from a bottle lying on the floor and

as a result, no sooner the matchstick fell on the spilt kerosine, her

clothes accidentally caught fire. Her husband, who was at home,

came and both of them doused the fire. She herself poured water

to put out the fire. For quite some time, she remained at the

spot. Thereafter her cousin brother (Bua’s son) Pukhraj sen came

to her house and took her to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital,

Jodhpur in a taxi. Thereafter her family members, i.e. mother,

father and brother also reached the hospital. She stated that she

had not been set to fire by anyone. She had no quarrel with her

husband. She accidentally caught fire while lighting the lamp.

Since from this statement, ingredients of offence was not being

disclosed, no action was taken.

(3 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

The paternal family members of Smt. Sangeeta made a

complaint to the SHO, Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur that the

said Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) had been given by her under pressure.

Thereupon, the SHO filed an application to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jodhpur for getting the statement of Smt. Sangeeta

recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.

Thereupon, Shri Santosh Agrawal, Judicial Magistrate,

Jodhpur recorded the statement of Smt. Sangeeta under Section

164 CrPC on 25.07.2011 at 12.02 p.m. after taking the requisite

certificate from Dr. Krishna Kumar, the treating doctor, that the

patient was in a fit condition to give her statement. In this

statement, Smt. Sangeeta alleged that on 24.07.2011 at about 7

o’clock, her mother-in-law came to her house and instigated her

husband that his wife, i.e. Smt. Sangeeta, was in habit of loitering

around here and there and was not of good character. She

allegedly told the appellant that Sangeeta should be set right and

that they would ensure that nothing happens to him. Saying so,

her mother-in-law took away her son. Her husband brought and

consumed liquor at about 9.45 in the night. Her husband doused

her with kerosine, which was lying in the house in a plastic bottle.

Thereafter, he went to the kitchen, brought matches and set her

Saree on fire. She tried to save herself, but could not succeed.

The door of the house was bolted. She started shouting, opened

the door, rushed out and poured water upon herself from pitcher

and doused the fire. Her husband bolted the room from inside.

For quite some time, she remained there. Her cousin Pukhraj Sen

came around and took her to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur.

Her parents also came to the hospital. She alleged that right from

the time of her marriage with the appellant, he used to beat her
(4 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

after making false imputations on her character. Her father-in-law

and mother-in-law also used to taunt her on account of dowry

given to her in the marriage. Both of them often imputed that she

was involved in prostitution. She further stated that as a matter

of fact, she used to work in Anganwadi. She did not make

complaint of this torture to anybody because she was afraid for

her family. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law

had taken her ornaments. She was never given due respect as a

family member and was treated like a servant. Her husband was

in a habit of breaking the household articles under the influence of

liquor. Whenever she complained about his misbehavour to her

in-laws, rather than counselling her husband, her mother-in-law

threatened her that she should go away and tried to justify the

offensive acts of her son. She categorically stated that on

24.07.2011, she did not disclose all these facts in her Parcha

Bayan because her husband, who was having the custody of her

son, had threatened her that if she told the police that he had set

her to fire, then her son would be killed. In the morning, her son

was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, she gathered the courage

to give correct statement.

The second Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) of Smt. Sangeeta

under treatment in the Burn Unit of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital,

Jodhpur was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 25.07.2011

at 2.30 p.m. In such statement, Smt. Sangeeta virtually repeated

the allegations set out in her statement recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. She alleged that after her

husband had set her to fire by pouring kerosine upon her person,

she herself doused the fire. Her husband neither tried to save her,

nor did he bring her to the hospital. Her cousin Pukhraj Sen
(5 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

brought her to the hospital. She had been continuously

maltreated in the matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law had

taken away her son Akash at about 5 o’clock. The first statement

given by her to the Investigating Officer Sallu Khan, S.I., Police

Station Mahamandir was incorrect because she was afraid for the

fate of her child, who was in the custody of the accused and a

threat had been given to her that in case she disclosed the true

picture and incriminated the accused, the child would be killed.

On the basis of this statement, a formal FIR No.299/2011 was

registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur for the offences

under Sections 498-A, 406 and 307 IPC and investigation was

commenced.

The Investigating Officer carried out the site inspection

of the place of occurrence. The burnt clothes lying in the room,

where Smt. Sangeeta was set afire, were collected. The bottle

containing kerosine was also seized. The burnt pieces of clothes

and other articles seized during the course of investigation were

forwarded to the FSL, from where a report (Ex.P/34) dated

24.09.2012 was received indicating presence of kerosine residue

in the burnt pieces of clothes. While undergoing treatment, Smt.

Sangeeta passed away on 01.08.2011, on which her dead body

was subjected to postmortem examination. As per the

postmortem examination report, the lower limb of the deceased

had escaped the impact of fire, whereas the entire upper parts of

body, including the chest, abdomen, neck, face etc., were having

superficial to deep burns. The cause of death was opined to be

septicemic shock as a result of 99% burns.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating

Officer proceeded to file charge-sheet against the appellant herein
(6 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 406 IPC and

against the co-accused Ambalal and Bidami for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 406 and 109 IPC. Since the offence under

Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was

committed to the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, from

where the same was transferred for trial to the Court of Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Upon

abolition of the Fast Track courts, the case was transferred for trial

to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities

Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan. Charges were framed against the

accused for the offences mentioned above. They pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 26

witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being

examined under Section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution

allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the

case. The appellant Surendra Sen stated that Smt. Sangeeta set

herself afire. Two witnesses were examined in defence. After

hearing the arguments of defence as well as the prosecution and

after appreciating the entire material available on record, the trial

court acquitted the co-accused Ambalal and Bidami from the

charges. While acquitting the present appellant from the charge

for the offence under Section 406 IPC, the trial court proceeded to

convict and sentence him as above by the impugned judgment.

Hence, this appeal.

Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel representing the

appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the trial court

committed grave error in law in placing reliance upon the second

Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) of the

deceased recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. As per him, the first
(7 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) of the deceased was the only and the

absolutely correct version of the incident and was faithfully

recorded by Sallu Khan, S.I. (P.W.6) in presence of father and

other paternal relatives of the deceased and as such, there was no

occasion or justification for the trial court to have discarded the

said Parcha Bayan and to have given precedence to the

subsequent versions deposed by Smt. Sangeeta in the Parcha

Bayan (Ex.P/8) and the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) recorded by

the Judicial Magistrate for convicting the appellant. He urged that

from the testimony of Medical Jurist P.W.24 Dr. D.D. Meena, it is

clear that the docotr did not notice any traces of kerosine when

postmortem was carried out on the body of the deceased. He

further submitted that the doctor conducting postmortem also

admitted that the lips of the deceased were 100% burnt and her

tongue was also burnt and thus, there was hardly any possibility

that the deceased could have given the detailed statements Ex.P/8

and Ex.P/36. He, thus, contended that these statements should

be discarded and the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted

by giving him the benefit of doubt. He further urged that the trial

court has itself discarded the material parts of the dying

declaration of Smt. Sangeeta, wherein she levelled allegations of

instigation and extortion and maltreatment for demand of dowry

against the acquitted co-accused Ambalal and Bidami. He, thus,

implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned

judgment and acquit the accused appellant from the charges.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s

counsel. He contended that the first dying declaration of the

deceased Smt. Sangeeta (Ex.P/7) was recorded in the situation,
(8 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

where the accused party had taken custody of Aakash, the only

child of the appellant and the deceased and she had been given a

veiled threat that in case, she divulged to the police that the

husband had burnt her, then the child would be done to death.

Under this treat and compulsion, the lady could not divulge the

truth because she was fearing for her child and her maternal

instincts prevented her from disclosing the true picture to the

police officer, who recorded her first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7).

However, no sooner, the child came to the hospital, the fear

perception of the lady for the child’s safety came to an end and

then she could gather the courage to disclose the true version of

the incident in her statement (Ex.P/36) recorded by the Judicial

Magistrate on 25.07.2011 at 12.02 p.m. and thereafter, to the

Investigating Officer (Ex.P/8) recorded on 25.07.2011 at 2.30 pm.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the conduct of

the appellant in failing to make any attempt to douse his burning

wife’s fire despite admittedly being present inside the house and in

failing to take her to the hospital clearly points to his guilty state

of mind. He further urged that the presence of Kerosine residue in

the burnt pieces of clothes worn by the deceased Smt. Sangeeta

clearly belie the version as set out in her first Parcha Bayan

Ex.P/7, wherein the theory of accidental fire was portrayed just

because of the fear perception of the deceased for the fate of her

child, who was in the custody of the accused. He urged that the

trial court appreciated in detail and in a just and apropos manner

the entire evidence available on record and came to the only

logical conclusion that the appellant set the deceased to fire after

pouring kerosine upon her and thereby murdered her. He, thus,

implored the court to dismiss the appeal.

(9 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have threadbare re-appreciated

the evidence available on record.

Primarily, the case of prosecution hinges upon the two

statements of the deceased, which fall within the definition of

dying declaration; first of them being the statement (Ex.P/36)

recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Shri Santosh Agrawal (P.W.23)

on 25.07.2011 at 12.02 pm. and the second being the Parcha

Bayan (Ex.P/8) recorded by the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) on

25.07.2011 at 2.30 p.m. In both of these statements, which

assumed the status of dying declaration after Smt. Sangeeta

expired, there are crystal clear allegations that the accused

poured kerosine upon his wife and then set her afire. Contrary to

these statements, the defence places heavy reliance on the first

Parcha Bayan of the deceased (Ex.P/7) recorded by the

Investigating Officer Sallu Khan (P.W.6), posted at Police Station

Mahamandir, wherein, the theory of accidental fire was set out.

As has been described above, the first Parcha Bayan substantially

exonerates the appellant, whereas, the subsequent two

statements (Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/36) implicate him to the hilt for the

offence of murder of Smt. Sangeeta. Therefore, it has to be

evaluated and resolved as to which of the three statements are

more credible and reliable and deserve to be admitted and read in

evidence as the substantive truth. It is an admitted position even

from the first exculpatory statement of the deceased (Ex.P/7) that

the appellant was very much present in the house when Smt.

Sangeeta, being his wife, caught fire. Though Smt. Sangeeta

stated that she and her husband tried to put out the accidental

fire from her clothes which occurred while lighting the Pooja lamp,
(10 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

but in the same breath, she stated that she ran out from the

room, poured water from the water pitcher and put out the fire.

She further stated that for quite some time thereafter, she

remained in the same position. Her cousin brother Pukhraj Sen,

who lives in the neighborhood, came and took her to Mahatma

Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur uin a taxi. If the conduct of the

appellant was having even a tinge of innocence, then the bare

minimum which was expected from him, was that, he should have

tried to put out the fire and take his wife to the hospital. The

normal human conduct of even a stranger, who comes across such

a set of events, would be to provide immedicate medical adi to the

victim. In the present case, the appellant, being the husband of

the deceased and he being present in the house at the relevant

time, made no effort whatsoever to douse her fire or to provide

her primary medical aid, what to talk of taking her to hospital. If

at all, the theory of accidental burns was having even a shred of

truth, then there was no reason as to why the appellant would not

have restored to the bare minimal humane steps of dousing the

fire of his wife and to take her to the hospital. In the statement

recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant categorically

stated that his wife set herself to fire. Thus, the theory of

accidental fire is not corroborated by the defence story. He never

offered an explanation that he tried to either douse the fire or

provided any medical aid to his burning wife. Therefore, conduct

of the appellant is surrounded under a dark cloud of doubt

pointing towards his deep rooted involvement in the crime. In the

exculpatory Parcha Bayan also (Ex.P/7) also, the deceased did not

state about the presence of her only child in the house.

Manifestly, thus, the explanation given by her in the incriminating
(11 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

dying declaration (Ex.P/36) and Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) that her

mother-in-law had taken away her child in the evening is plausible

and acceptable. Since the appellant made no effort whatsoever to

save his wife, the explanation set out in the subsequent dying

declarations (Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/36) that the appellant threatened

the deceased that her child would be done to death and thus she

was compelled to give the exculpatory statement (Ex.P/7) is

highly probable and rather appears to be the absolute truth. In

this background, the contention advanced by the learned defence

counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh that the first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7)

of the deceased is her truthful version is not fit to be accepted.

Not only this, there are numerous other reasons for discarding the

Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7). If at all the version as set out in the

statement Ex.P/7 is to be accepted, then manifestly, it was a case

wherein, the kerosine had been spilled on the ground and the

clothes of the deceased accidentally caught fire when she threw

burning matchstick on the floor. Had this been the situation, then

there was no occasion for the presence of kerosine residue in the

burnt pieces of clothes collected by the Investigating Officer from

the body of the deceased. The presence of kerosine residue on

the burnt clothes pieces as opined in the FSL Report (Ex.P/) gives

ample indication that the deceased was set to fire after pouring

kerosine on her clothes. There is yet another reason for coming to

this conclusion, inasmuch as, Dr. D.D. Meena (P.W.24), who

conducted the postmortem upon the body of the deceased, stated

that feet of the deceased had escaped fire. If the fire had spread

from the floor, then the impact thereof would definitely have hit

the feet of the deceased at the first instance and they could not

have remained unscathed. Therefore also, we are of the firm
(12 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

opinion that the version as set out in the first Parcha Bayan

(Ex.P/7) of the deceased does not give true picture of the incident

and the said statement appears to have been given by the

deceased under fear that her child, who was in control of the

accused, could be harmed.

Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel representing the

appellant, also contended that the deceased was not in position to

give the dying declaration (Ex.P/36) and the Parcha Bayan

(Ex.P/8) in light of the admission made by P.W.24 Dr. D.D. Meena,

the doctor, who conducted postmortem, that the face, lips and

tongue of the deceased had 100% burnt. Suffice to say that the

doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on

01.08.2011, i.e. after nearly 6 days of the incident. In the

meantime, Smt. Sangeeta was being treated at the Mahatma

Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The Judicial Magistrate Shri Santosh

Agrawal (P.W.23) recorded her dying declaration after taking

opinion of the treating doctor Shri Krishna Kumar, who confirmed

and gave a certificate to the effect that the injured lady was in a

fit condition to give statement. Had there been any pith or

substance in the version of Dr. D.D. Meena that Smt. Sangeeta

was not in a position to give the statement, then there is no

explanation as to how her Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7), on which the

defence places heavily reliance, came to be recorded. P.W.2 Amar

Singh, being the neighbour of the deceased and the appellant,

stated that the accused and Smt. Sangeeta often quarreled with

each other. On the fateful day, he came out of his room and saw

Sangeeta burning. She was running helter and skelter and was

crying out. Hussain Khan’s wife covered her with some cloth.

Surendra was inside the room. People knocked the door, but he
(13 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

did not come out. Surendra was asked as to how the deceased

caught fire, but he did not offer any explanation. Their son was

not present in the house at that time. Nothing significant could be

elicited by the defence in the cross-examination conducted from

this witness. Similar statement was given by P.W.3 Hussain Khan.

From the statements of these witnesses, we are duly satisfied that

the accused made no effort whatsoever to douse the fire of his

wife and rather bolted the door from inside after she had come out

having received the burn injuries inside the room, where both

were present. The lady doused the fire on her own by pouring the

pitcher of water on her person. This conduct of the accused

clearly points to his guilty demeanor. P.W.5 Pukhraj Sen, being

the relative of the deceased, testified that Smt. Sangeeta’s

neighbours called him on 24.07.2011 at 9.30 in the night and told

him that Sangeeta had received burn injuries. He rushed to the

house of Sangeeta, who was standing outside the main gate in a

burnt condition and was crying. He did not see her husband. He

took Sangeeta to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur and got

her admitted in the burn ward. The witness signed the Parcha

Bayan (Ex.P/7).

Sallu Khan (P.W.6) deposed that he recorded the Parcha

Bayan (Ex.P/7) of Smt. Sangeeta whereafter, her paternal

relatives approached the SHO, Police Station Mahamandir and

complained that the first statement had been given by Smt.

Sangeeta under the threat and fear of her husband that that she

desired to give a fresh statement. Therefore, the fresh statement

(Ex.P/8) of Smt. Sangeeta was recorded by this witness. P.W.21

Kesu Lal, being the father of the deceased, and P.W.1 Subhash,

being the brother of the deceased, gave evidence to the effect
(14 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

that they received the information regarding Sangeeta having

received burn injuries. They reached the Mahatma Gandhi

Hospital, Jodhpur. Sangeeta was speaking at that time. She was

saying that she had been burnt by her in-laws and her husband.

She requested that her child had been taken by her mother in law

and that he should be brought back. Sangeeta remained

hospitalized for 8-9 days. None of the matrimonial relatives of

Sangeeta came to the hospital during this period. Surendra used

to beat Sangeeta after consuming liquor. Nothing significant was

elicited from these two witnesses during their cross-examination.

P.W.23 Shri Santosh Agrawal recorded the dying declaration

(Ex.P/36) of Smt. Sangeeta after assuring himself about her fit

state to give such statement and after taking the fitness certificate

from Dr. Krishna Kumar (P.W.26). The doctor gave a categoric

statement that he examined Smt. Sangeeta and gave the

certificate regarding her fit mental and physical state for giving

the statement after examining her and upon being fully satisfied in

this behalf. Nothing significant could be extracted from these two

witnesses in their cross-examination so as to cast a doubt on the

veracity of the dying declaration (Ex.P/36). The evidence of the

remaining prosecution witnesses is formal in nature.

As has been mentioned above, the accused-appellant,

upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC, gave a bald

explanation that he had been falsely implicated in this case and

that Sangeeta had set fire to herself. The defence witness Govind

Singh (D.W.1) alleged that he was residing in the neighbourhood

of the accused. He received information about Surendra’s wife

having received burns and went there at once, where his relative

Dharmendra was already present. Dharmendra made an inquiry
(15 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

from Sangeeta, upon which, she stated that she received

accidental burns when she was offering prayers and threw a

burning matchstick on the floor, where a kerosine had been spilt.

The witness further stated that Surendra was dousing fire of

Sangeeta by pouring water on her. At that time, the maternal

relatives of Sangeeta came there and started assaulting Surendra,

who went inside and bolted the room to save himself. Manifestly,

the version of this witness is totally false and fabricated because

even the appellant Surendra himself has not taken any such plea

in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that he came

out and tried to douse the fire of Smt. Sangeeta. Similar

statement was given by Balwant Singh (P.W.2).

In wake of the discussion made above, we are of the

firm opinion that these two defence witnesses were created and a

cooked up story was deposed by them to lend credence to the

fictitious defence theory. In view of the above narration, we

concur with the findings recorded in the trial court’s judgment that

Smt. Sangeeta gave the exculpatory Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7)

exonerating the accused because she was apprehensive about the

safety of her child, who was in control of the accused party. Soon

after the statement was recorded, the parental family members of

the deceased made a complaint at the police station that her

statement was recorded under the threat of her husband

whereafter, the SHO filed the application and got recorded the

dying declaration (Ex.P/36) by the Judicial Magistrate wherein

Smt. Sangeeta categorically stated that the accused appellant

poured kerosine on her person and then set her to fire. Similar

version was deposed by Sangeeta in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8),

which was also recorded on 25.07.2011. The version as set out in
(16 of 16) [CRLA-817/2015]

the first Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/7) is not corroborated by various

other circumstances, which we have discussed supra. On the

contrary, the version as set out in the dying declaration (Ex.P/36)

and the subsequent Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/8) of the deceased is

truthful, trustworthy and worthy of reliance. The conduct of the

appellant in failing to take any steps to douse fire of his wife or to

take her to the hospital for providing her treatment gives ample

indication about his guilty demeanor and lends credence to the

two dying declarations of the deceased.

As an upshot of the above discussion, we hereby hold

that the learned trial court appreciated the evidence available on

record in an apropos manner while recording the guilt of the

appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2015 which

does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever

warranting interference by this court in the exercise of the

appellate jurisdiction. The conviction of the appellant as recorded

vide impugned judgment dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Jodhpur

Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.2/2013 is based on sound,

unimpeachable, cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, we find no

merit in the instant appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

5-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

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