Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Nikku Ram And Ors on 30 August, 1995
Further, while interpreting
the provisions of Section 304B, 498A, 306 and 324, IPC in the decision
FIR No. 341/2014 State Vs. Sonu Pathak & Anr. PS OIA 10 of 12
reported as State of H.P. Vs. Nikku Ram & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 219 the
Supreme Court observed that harassment of constitute cruelty under
explanation (b) to Section 498A must have nexus with the demand of dowry
and if this is missing the call will fall beyond the scope of Section 498A IPC.
Partap vs The State Of U.P on 10 September, 1975
In Partap V. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 966, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and observed as under:
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989
(vii) Similar view was adopted in the decision reported as Smt. Sarla
Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1990 (2) RCR 18,
wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed that it is not every harassment
or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A IPC. Beating and
harassment must be to force the bride to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal
demands.