Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Akula Ravinder And Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 January, 1991

State vs . 1. Mahesh Solanki on 2 May, 2019

In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Akula Ravinder and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of SC No. 441006-16 State Vs. Mahesh Solanki & Ors. Page No. 34/96 of Section 113B of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Revati Bai & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 4 July, 2019

38. Shri Datt, learned senior counsel placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Akula Ravinder (supra) during the course of arguments and argued that in the said case also, the reason of death of deceased could not be established. Hence, there was no evidence establishing that death was an unnatural death. Therefore, Section 304-B IPC is not attracted. A careful reading of this judgment shows that during the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there was not a slightest indication given to him about incriminating circumstances 24 Criminal Appeal No.799/1994 and about the fact that death could be due to poisoning. In this backdrop, it was held that Section 304-B IPC was not met out. At the cost of repetition, in our considered view, in the present case incriminating circumstances were brought to the notice of the appellants by the Court below while examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but no explanation were offered by them regarding the multiple injuries and cause of death of Uma Bai. Thus, aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the appellants in the present case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - S Paul - Full Document

Vijay Bahadur @ Pahdai vs State Of U.P. on 30 July, 2019

But having regard to the common background of these offences it has to be taken that the meaning of "cruelty" or "harassment" is the same as prescribed in the Explanation to Section 498-A under which "cruelty" by itself amounts to an offence. Under Section 304-B it is "dowry death" that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P. [1991 Supp (2) SCC 99 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 990 : AIR 1991 SC 1142] ). Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is seven years; presumption arises as to dowry death when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage.
Allahabad High Court Cites 151 - Cited by 0 - R R Awasthi - Full Document

Smt. Manjari Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022

Under Section 304-B it is "dowry death" that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P.) Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-B (sic 113-A) of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty. The period of operation of Section 113-B (sic 113- A) of the Evidence Act is seven years; presumption arises when a woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of marriage.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Bharat Singh vs State Of M.P. on 18 April, 2022

Under Section 304-B it is "dowry death" that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P.) Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-B (sic 113-A) of the Evidence Act include in their amplitude past events of cruelty.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 11 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Keshab Chandra Panda vs State on 21 July, 1994

No such period is mentioned in Section 498A. A parson charged and acquitted Under Section 304B can be convicted Under Section 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out. If the case is established there can be a conviction under both the sections. (see Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1142). Section 498A, IPC and Section 113A of the Act include in their amplitude past event of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113A of the Act is seven years. Presumption arises when a woman committed suicide with a period of seven years from the date of marriage. In the case at hand, accused and the deceased appear to have reconciled and sorted out their differences after 28-1-1990. There is no material on record to show that after 28-1-1990, accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty which was of such a nature as to drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury, or danger to life, limb or health, whether, mental or physical. Its submitted by learned counsel for State that assault by iron rod on 2 6-1989 must have left indelible scar in the mind of the deceased. But if she was so much upset or affected by that assault, she could not have waited for about two years to vent out her feelings, that too after having reconciled in January, 1990. A case Under Section 498A, IPC is therefore, not made out. Additionally in the FIR there is no mention about any demand of dowry by the accused. Evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is also vague so far as demand of dowry aspect is concerned. It has not been clearly stated that accused was the person who made alleged demand of dowry. In that view of the matter, offence Under Section 498A is also not made out. The conclusions of the learned trial Judge are unsustainable. Conviction and consequential sentence as awarded by learned trial Judge are set aside. The petitioner-accused be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention in custody is required in connection with any other case.
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Bimal Kumar Khetan And Sunil Kumar ... vs State Of Orissa on 8 November, 2006

10. It is argued that the death in the present case being not under normal circumstances, the provisions of Section 304-B are attracted. The Supreme Court in the case of Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1991 SCC (Cri) 990, has observed that in a case where the prosecution has failed to establish that it was an unnatural death, it cannot be surmised that the death must be due to unnatural circumstances. The facts of the said case are more or less identical to that in the present case.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A S Naidu - Full Document

Harjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 1997

In Akula Rabinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 642= II (1991) DMC 537 (SC), marriage of the bride took place in the month of April, 1984. She died in the month of April, 1987. Dead body showed some external injuries, parents were informed. Report was lodged. Case was registered. Dead body was sent for post-mortem. Doctor who conducted the postmortem opined that death was homicidal in nature and was not suicidal. Viscera was not sent for examination since the doctor did not suspect that death was due to poisoning. Trial Court did not accept the prosecution case that death was due to axphyxia because it appeared from the prosecution that the deceased survived for about 15 minutes even after death as per PW 3 who is the first doctor who examined and gave first aid to the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was rather impossible to hold that the death was otherwise than under normal circumstances and consequently important aspect of Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code was not made out. In the case in hand, however, the doctor categorically found that the death was due to the intake of organo phosphorus group in insecticide.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - M L Singhal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next