Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.01 seconds)
Om Prakash And Anr vs State on 21 December, 2021 cites

Kalu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 1999

Learned counsel representing the accused-appellants submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and seriously erred in placing implicit reliance upon the dying declaration of the deceased as there were material contradictions in the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/2) and the dying declaration (Ex. P/15). Before recording the statement of the deceased, the requisite certificate of fitness was not obtained. Further, it was submitted that the present case was of suicide and does not fall under Section 302 IPC as Purnram (PW-9) husband of the deceased had rescued her from fire and got injured in the process and took her for treatment. It was only in a fit of rage (Downloaded on 21/12/2021 at 09:12:54 PM) (4 of 9) [CRLA-576/2015] after being flustered by behaviour of her in-laws i.e. accused- appellants that the deceased committed suicide. The testimony of PW-5 Geeta Devi grandmother of deceased and PW-4 Bhura Ram father of deceased affirms the defence theory that suicide was committed by the deceased and it was not a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It was further submitted that it is only by the inducement and tutoring of the grandmother Geeta Devi (PW-5) and relative Aatma Ram (PW-6), the deceased modulated the fact that she attmepted to commit suicide to that of being set ablaze by her in-laws. It was also stated by Pradeep Kumar (DW-3) that the appellant No.1 Om Prakash at the relevant point of time was working in M-NREGA scheme. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 10 SCC 324 (Kalu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan) in support of his contention. Paras no. 7 and 8 of the said judgment are relevant which are reproduced as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 83 - Full Document
1