Friday, August 2, 2013

498a, 125, DV peedit hubbys take heart. It can b FAR worse. Wife pour acid on hubby, lock room &kill gruesome manner. Then she goes appealing to the HC as well, claiming hubby was drunk and calling for sex second time in bathroom !! while postmortem finds NO alcohol in Hubby's blood. Finally Honourable HC will reduce her sentence as well !! If you wondered what the motive was

498a, 125, DV peedit hubbys take heart. It can b FAR worse. Wife pour acid on hubby, lock room &kill gruesome manner. Then she goes appealing to the HC as well, claiming hubby was drunk and calling for sex second time in bathroom !! while postmortem finds NO alcohol in Hubby's blood. Finally Honourable HC will reduce her sentence as well !! If you wondered what the motive was 



******************************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM DELHI HIGH COURT SITE 
******************************************************************



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : 3rd MAY, 2013

DECIDED ON : 17th JULY, 2013

+ CRL.A. 1060/2011

SHAKUNTALA ....Appellant Through : Mr.R.K.Dikshit, Advocate & Ms.Nandita Rao, Advocate.

versus

STATE (G.N.C.T. OF DELHI) ….Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Shakuntala (the appellant) challenges correctness of a judgment dated 03.01.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 68/2009 arising out of FIR No. 480/2008 PS Jahangir Puri by which she was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. By an order dated 10.01.2011, she was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant- Shakuntala were that on the night intervening 25/26.09.2008 at about 01.30 A.M. she poured acid on her husband Rattan Lal at jhuggi No. A-408, behind ITI, K Block, Jahangir Puri. Daily Diary (DD) No.5B (Ex.PW-9/A) was recorded at PS Jahangir Puri at 02.29 A.M. after getting information from Duty HC Umed Singh, Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital (in short BJRM Hospital) that Rattan Lal's wife had poured acid on him and he was admitted at BJRM Hospital. The investigation was assigned to ASI Vijender Singh who with Const. Devender went to the spot. He recorded Rattan Lal's statement in the hospital after declared fit to make statement. In his statement (Ex.PX), Rattal Lal disclosed to the Investigating Officer that at 01.30 A.M. his wife Shakuntala poured acid on him. He also attributed motive for causing burn injuries with acid by her. ASI Vijender Singh lodged First Information Report for commission of offence under Section 326 IPC. Rattan Lal succumbed to the injuries on 28.09.2008. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the body. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Shakuntala was arrested. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and report was collected. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellantShakuntala for committing the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. She was duly charged and brought to Trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove her guilt. In her 313 statement, she pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced her. Being aggrieved, she has preferred the appeal


full case here : http://bit.ly/1cl1IUg




***

FOLLOW 
@ATMwithDick on twitter or 
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases ) 
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases


regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist