Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rita Singh @ Rita Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand

Rita Singh @ Rita Devi vs State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Mar 19, 2008
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/516235

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rita Singh @ Rita Devi

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Legal References

Reported In
[2008(2)JCR421(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......false and that marriage had taken place 13 years ago and the deceased was having two sons aged about 11 years and 10 years and they in their statements have not said anything about the deceased being subjected to torture by the petitioner and, as a matter of fact, one day before the occurrence while one of the sons of the deceased was being scolded by the deceased he got angry and assaulted her mother and in that course when the petitioner intervened and took favour of her grand-son, the deceased got annoyed and committed suicide and this fact transpired in course of investigation when the statement of one of the independent witnesses was recorded and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.3. as against this, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that as per the statement made by father and mother of the deceased, the deceased was being subjected to torture constantly by the petitioner and just one day before the occurrence, the deceased on telephone had informed to her parents about her subjection to torture by the petitioner and this fact gets corroboration from the suicidal note left by the deceased and not only that allegation of subjection to assault also gets corroboration from the post-mortem report showing external injuries on the person of the deceased which according to doctor were caused by hard and blunt substance and in these situations the petitioner can easily be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed offence under section 306 of the indian penal code.4. regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. however, keeping in view the age of the petitioner and also submission regarding ailment, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after remaining in custody for six months. bail rejected.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.R. Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and learned Counsel appearing for the informant. The petitioner is an accused in Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2008 registered under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner aged about 65 years who happened to be the mother-in-law of the deceased though has been alleged to have subjected the deceased to cruelty to the extent that the deceased committed suicide but the entire allegation is false and that marriage had taken place 13 years ago and the deceased was having two sons aged about 11 years and 10 years and they in their statements have not said anything about the deceased being subjected to torture by the petitioner and, as a matter of fact, one day before the occurrence while one of the sons of the deceased was being scolded by the deceased he got angry and assaulted her mother and in that course when the petitioner intervened and took favour of her grand-son, the deceased got annoyed and committed suicide and this fact transpired in course of investigation when the statement of one of the independent witnesses was recorded and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

3. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the informant submits that as per the statement made by father and mother of the deceased, the deceased was being subjected to torture constantly by the petitioner and just one day before the occurrence, the deceased on telephone had informed to her parents about her subjection to torture by the petitioner and this fact gets corroboration from the suicidal note left by the deceased and not only that allegation of subjection to assault also gets corroboration from the post-mortem report showing external injuries on the person of the deceased which according to Doctor were caused by hard and blunt substance and in these situations the petitioner can easily be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide and thereby committed offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. However, keeping in view the age of the petitioner and also submission regarding ailment, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after remaining in custody for six months. Bail rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial