Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Bachni Devi & Anr vs State Of Haryana Th. Secy. Home Dep on 8 February, 2011

) Momin Iqbal vs State on 20 September, 2012

It has been held in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1098 titled as Bachni Devi & Another V. State of Haryana through Secretary, Home Department that as a matter of law, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is fully attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appellants have failed to rebut the presumption U/s. 113B, so are liable to be convicted U/s. 304B of IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jais M.Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2012

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bachni Devi and another v. State of Haryana [(2011)(4) SCC 427], the demand for money even under the guise of purchasing manure, motor pump etc. will come under the definition of dowry. I am unable to sustain the above contention. In the above decision in para 21, the Apex Court has held as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V K Mohanan - Full Document

State vs . 1. Vijay Kumar on 29 February, 2020

45. The said judgment was reconsidered in case titled Bachni Devi Vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 4 SCC 427, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said judgment does not lay down a law of universal application. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits. If a demand for property or valuable security, directly or indirectly, has nexus with marriage, such demand would constitute demand for dowry. The cause of raising of such demand remains immaterial. The said judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs 1 Naren Vashisht on 30 September, 2016

9.9 Said two judgments of Appasaheb and S. Goptal Reddy also indicate that demand should be one which has direct correlation with the marriage and such demand should be in consideration for marriage. As per Sh. Jindal, such observations given by Apex Court in Appasaheb were considered in Bachni Devi Vs. State of Haryana (supra) by Apex Court. In that case, there was demand for motorcycle as husband-accused wanted to start milk vending business. Hon'ble Apex Court, while making reference to the aforesaid judgments of S. Goptal Reddy and Appasaheb observed that there was no absolute proposition that demand for money or some property or valuable security on account of some business or FIR No. 183/13 PS Rani Bagh (State Vs. Naren Vashisht & Anr. ) Page 27 of 32 financial requirement could not be termed as demand for dowry.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Babul Miah vs The State Of Tripura on 22 December, 2020

[Emphasis added] [44] It is quite apparent that Rajinder Singh (supra) and four other judgments viz, Bachni Devi (supra) Qulban Singh (supra) Surinder Singh (supra) and Ravinder Singh (supra) have distinguished the propositions of law in Appasaheb (supra) where the apex court had observed that demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expense or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as demand for dowry.
Tripura High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dharam Das vs State Of U.P. on 29 September, 2020

Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 12 SCC 350 at pages 360-361; Bachni Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 4 SCC 427 at 431, Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P., (2012) 8 SCC 594 at 599, Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (2013) 4 SCC 177 at 184-185, Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014) 4 SCC 129 at 137, Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 12 SCC 582 at 583, Suresh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 353 at 361, Sher Singh v. State of Haryana, 2015 1 SCALE 250 at 262.''
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next