Chhattisgarh Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: I(2002)DMC746
K.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Arun Kochar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ranbir Singh, Government Advocate for the State.2. A case in Crime No. 96/2000 has been registered by Pandariya Police for the of offences punishable under Sections 304B, 201 read with Section 34 and Section 498A of I.P.C. against the applicant who is husband of deceased Narayani and against the other accused namely Rama Devi, mother of the applicant and Sanju, brother of the applicant.3. The allegation against all the accused persons is that they have ill-treated the deceased demanding dowry. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has released the other accused persons namely Sanju, brother of the applicant and Rama Devi, mother of the applicant by its order dated 8.5.2001 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 856 and 857 of 2001. The case against the applicant and the case against the other two accused who have already been released on bail are one and the same.4. In the circumstances, the...
Bharat Das and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC115; 2002(2)MPHT38(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. The applicants, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Sheela,have filed this revision petition against the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 229/2000, whereby the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34, IPC have been framed against them. 2. According to the learned counsel for the applicants the marriage between the co-accused Pramod and deceased Sheela had taken place 11 years before and as such it is not a case of death within seven years of the marriage under Section 304B of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the deceased was suffering from Malaria and the treatment was going on. He refers to the seizure memo whereby Chlorocuine tablets were seized from the cot where the deceased was lying. He read out the autopsy report wherein it was mentioned that the stomach of the deceased was full of undigested rice, subji (kaler, Tamatar & Taroi). While ...
Sukhnandan Vs. State of M.P. (Cg)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT34(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. This revision is against the order of conviction dated 26-4-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Cr. A, No. 87/1993 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant/applicant against the conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in Criminal Case No. 656/1990 under Sections 354 and 323, IPC has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 31-10-1990 at 12 o'clock while Parbatia Bai (P.W. 1) was returning from the well, accused met her and followed her. He asked where her husband has gone. Parbatia told that her husband has gone for earning wages. He demanded liquor from Parbatia, but Parbatia refused. He tried to drag Parbatia and took her near the Jack-Fruit Tree (Kathal Ped) and slapped Parbatia. Parbatia cried, her bangles were broken and her Saree had torn, then the accused ran away from the spot. Parbatia complained the matter to Muniram, her husband. Both of them then went to the police station on 2-11-1990 at 11:...
Ramdeo Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)MPHT10(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, Ag. C.J. 1. Heard finally.2. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-12-2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the learned Tribunal has passed an order of recounting without recording the evidence and without following the procedure.3. Respondent No. 4 while appearing in person submitted that he was present on 9-4-2001, but the Presiding Officer was on leave. He said that thereafter he could not appear.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that without recording the evidence the matter cannot be decided and the recounting cannot be ordered when an application for recounting was not given.5. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 submitted that recounting has been properly ordered and application was made. However it is admitted that both the parties have not adduced the evidence.6. Matters like this where the parties are at issue and the pleadings are there denying the averments made in the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›