Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
Ashok Bansal vs State on 14 August, 2014 cites

Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002

4 Arguments have been addressed by both the respective parties. 5 On behalf of petitioners Ashok Bansal and Chetan Bansal, submission is that the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC are not made out as the suicide note which is admittedly in the hand- writing of the victim is only focussed upon the role of the husband i.e. Rajiv Bansal; this suicide note which is the primary evidence with the prosecution does not mention anything about any dowry demand made by any of the aforenoted two petitioners; the question of entrustment could not arise. To substantiate this argument, attention has been drawn to the record including the compromise agreement dated 22.07.2004 entered between Rajiv Bansal and Pooja wherein also at the time of the agreement to withdraw the allegations made by Pooja in her complaint dated 09.01.2004, there is not a whisper of any dowry demand made by Crl. Rev.Nos. 621/2009, 635/2009 & 169/2010 Page 5 of 18 the petitioners. Submission being that the supplementary statements of the parents of the victim recorded on 23.12.2004 for the first time had done paddings in the FIR and these supplementary statements which were later in time and not in consonance with the earlier allegations made by the victim herself, cannot be looked into; they are liable to be ignored. Accordingly charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC against petitioners Ashok Bansal and Section 498-A of the IPC against Chetan Bansal are liable to be dropped. To support her submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon 1996 Crl.L.J.1026 Smt. Rani & Others Vs. The State, 78 (1999) DLT 385 Parvinder Kaur Vs. Ms. Kanwaljit Kaur, 2007 (8) AD (Delhi) 528 D. Malik Vs. State & Ors. and (2002) 2 SCC 135 Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra. Submission being that if there are two versions available one of which is the narration of the deceased herself (which in this case is the suicide note) and the other narrative being the version of her parents (which are supplementary statements recorded on 23.12.2004), the latter necessarily cannot be looked into as they are contrary to the version given by the victim herself. Thus, in the absence of any particular or specific allegations against the petitioners, they are Crl. Rev.Nos. 621/2009, 635/2009 & 169/2010 Page 6 of 18 entitled to be discharged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 494 - Full Document
1