Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.69 seconds)Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt. Raj Rani vs State (Delhi Administration) on 8 February, 2000
In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 2000 SC 3559, this
Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context to the
provisions of Section 498A I.P.C., the court must examine that
allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005
In Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100, this
Court explained the distinction of cruelty as provided under Section 306 and 498A
IPC observing that under Section 498A cruelty committed by the husband or his
relation drive woman to commit suicide etc. while under Section 306 IPC, suicide
is abated and intended. Therefore, there is a basic difference of the intention in
application of the said provisions.
Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 April, 2002
In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC
2078; this Court held that "cruelty" has to be understood having a specific statutory
meaning provided in Section 498A I.P.C. and there should be a case of
continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another.
M/S. Tulsidas Khimji vs Their Workmen on 11 April, 1962
10. It is settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the
finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does
not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a
regular court of appeal. It's function is to ensure that law is being properly
administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the
issues by re-appreciating the evidence. This Court would not ordinarily interfere
with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence
again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the
normal practice. The position may undoubtedly be different if the inference is one
of law from the facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially
affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure. (Vide Firm Sriniwas Ram
Kumar Vs. Mahabir Prasad & Ors.; AIR 1951 SC 177; M/s. Tulsi Das Khimji Vs.
The Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1007; and Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors. Vs.
Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 4362).