Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)
Dhula Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 November, 1994 cites

Inder Sain vs State Of Punjab on 4 May, 1973

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over: Inder Sain v. State, 1981 Cri LJ 1116 (Delhi). It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Smt. Kamla was not in a fit condition to make the dying declaration as she had 94% burns and further that the dying declaration was recorded by PW 16 Mahendra Singh, H.C., though the doctor on duty was present, which raises a suspicion regarding truthfulness and veracity of the dying declaration and as such the so-called dying declaration cannot be relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 64 - K K Mathew - Full Document

L. V. Jadhav vs Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar & Others on 30 August, 1983

'Consideration' is something that will be kept in mind in making the decision. The demand of money made for establishment of a business, though it has not been proved in the present case, because the accused was serving in Diamond Industry or the demand for the transfer of the room in his name, which exists in the name of his wife, therefore, cannot be said to be a consideration for the marriage. At the most it can be said to be consideration for the happy marital life and not a consideration for the marriage and, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of the word 'dowry'. What is 'dowry': came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of: L. V. Jadhav v. Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar, (1983) 2 Crimes 470: (1983 Cri LJ 1501) and the Apex Court, after considering various provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 114 - A Varadarajan - Full Document
1