Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Mahendra Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 3 June, 2022
In Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP, 1995 SCC (Crl) 1157, it was held that conviction for abetment merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased is not punishable. For committing the offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be some intention and some positive act on the part of the accused to instigate the victim or to aid her in committing the suicide. The lady was harassed and ill-treated by her husband, who refused to accompany her to her parents' house for celebration of a festival. Therefore, she committed suicide by setting herself to fire. It was held that accused husband was not blamed anywhere at any stage, so it could not be said that he in any way had instigated her to commit suicide.
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs State Of M.P on 1 May, 2002
In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh VS. State of MP (2002) Crl.L.J. 2796 (SC), it was held that accused was in the habit of drinking and out of frustration one day asked the deceased to go and die. It was held that this much was not sufficient to constitute the offence of instigation as there was absence of mens rea. Charge framed under Section 306 IPC against the accused was, therefore, quashed.
State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors on 16 August, 2011
In State Vs. Sunil Kumar, 1997 Crl.L.J. (2014) Gujarat, it was held that mere quarreling with the wife would not amount to abetment. In the same way mere misbehavior on the part of the accused cannot be equated with abetment.''
Kanchan Sharma vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 17 September, 2021
During investigation it has been found that the revisionist / husband of deceased used to raise finger at the character of deceased and he has gone to the extent of doubting the paternity of the child in womb of deceased and he used to pressurize the deceased for DNA test to determine the paternity of the child in womb. Thus, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty on that account. In view of these facts and circumstances and also considering the statement of informant and his family members, it cannot be said that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC for charge is made out. The facts and circumstances of the case of Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) were quite different from the instant matter and thus, the said case is of no help to the revisionist.