Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Respondent (State)
Respondent (State)
E
PL
हंद मट
ू कोट तयोगता
M
टे ट
SA
vs.
S
अधकारय क सच
ू ी.................................................................................2
E
े!ाधकार का बयान................................................................................3
PL
म%
ु …
े …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
म%
ु का (व)तार………………………………………………………………….………………………………………….5
M
ाथ,ना…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………14
SA
S
C
M
H
तवाद के प म
1
अधकारय क सच
ू ी
E
● Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh
PL
● Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, Appeal (C) 3930 of 2002
तवाद के प म
2
े!ाधकार का बयान
E
के सामने अपना अधकार आहवान कर रहे ह:। तवा3द (वन<तापव
ू क
,
PL
इस >शे!धकार के सा@ने नवेदन कतA ह:।
M
SA
S
C
M
H
तवाद के प म
3
म%
ु े
E
● >या आरोपी भारतीय दं ड सं3हता क धारा 304-बी के तहत दहे ज़ हDया के
दोषी ह:?
PL
● >या शोभा के साथ ूरतापव
ू क
, Nयवहार Oकया गया और >या आरोपी
भारतीय दं ड सं3हता कधरा 498-ए के तहत दोषी ह:?
M
SA
S
C
M
H
तवाद के प म
4
म%
ु का (व)तार
E
अदालत से यह दनता पव
ू क
नवेदन 4कया जाता है क1 सोभा क1 म9ृ यु संदध
PL
प;रिथतय>म/ हुई है । घटनाओ के Cम को दे ख कर यह पता चलता है क1 शाद
के शE
M
ु के दन> म/ सोभाका पत और उसके ससरु ाल वाले उसे ज़बरदती दबाव
तवाद के प म
5
परू दहे ज़ क1 रकम को दे ने म/ नाकाम रहे ।इस कारण से उशे और ता;रत 4कया
गया िजसके कारण उसके पास आपनी जान लेने के अलावा और 4कओ चारा नहं
बचा था।
E
PL
भारतीय दं ड संहता यह बोलता है क1:
● “306. Abetment of suicide.-- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
M
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”1
SA
अभयL
ु त ने उस औरत को चरम सीमा तक परे शान और मजबरू 4कया जब तक
मौत संदध प;रिथथयो म/ नहं हुई है ।इस बात पे यह कहा जा सकता है क1
M
1
Section 306, Indian Penal Code 1860
तवाद के प म
6
2. >या आरोपी भारतीय दं ड सं3हता क धारा 304-बी के तहत दहे ज़ हDया के
E
दोषी ह:?
PL
अब हम भारतीय दं ड संहता के धारा 304-बी के अ+दर पव
ू अपे[\त त9व> क1
○
M
औरत क मौत का कारण शाररक घाव या Oफर जलने से होनी
SA
चा3हए
○ मDृ यु सामा9य परि)थतय म
नहं होनी चा3हए
○ शाद के सात साल के अ9दर होनी चा3हए मDृ यु
○ यह बात साफ़ होनी चा3हए क लड़क क मDृ यु के कुछ ह समय
S
पहले उसके साथ ूरता परू वक सं3दEध Nयवहार हुआ होना चा3हए
C
तवाद के प म
7
“Firstly, it can be agreed upon by all parties that the death of
the victim was not a natural death and it has already been
stated in the facts of the case that the victim has died of
suicide which is an unnatural cause.”2
E
दस
ू र बात पहले मw
ु े म/ यह साVबत ह गया है क1 मौत संदध
PL
प;रिथतय> म/ नहं हुई है और बिxक सफ लापरवाह और अभयL
ु त के
कारन हुई है ।
M
तीसर बात आ9मह9या शाद के सात साल के अ+दर क1 गयी है ।
SA
और आyखर म/ यह क1 शोभा क1 मौत दहे ज़ क1 मांग के तुरंत बाद हुई
थी।
S
death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment
for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that
such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this
H
section," dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the
Indian Penal Code.]3
2
Forensic Medicine for Lawyers. London: Tottel Publishing. 2008. pp. 278–287. ISBN 1-84592-241-7.
3
Section 113B, Evidence Act 1872
तवाद के प म
8
कानन
ू ने दहे ज़ ह9या के केस> को साVबत करने के लए मानक> को कम कर
E
“It stated that the expression ‘soon before’ used in Section 113-B is a relative term and
there is no strait-jacket formula which can be laid down by fixing any time limit. The
PL
expression ‘soon before’ is pregnant with the idea of proximity test and it cannot be
considered as synonymous with the term ‘immediately before’. It is the court which has
to determine the period which can fall within the term ‘soon before’ and it is to be done
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, the time period which
may fall within the purview of the expression ‘soon before’ in a particular case may not
M
necessarily fall so in another case. However, there must be a proximate and live link. It
is this proximate and live link that the court emphasises on in most cases involving
dowry death. Thus, if an alleged incident of cruelty or harassment has become stale
enough so as not to disturb or affect the mental stability of the woman in question, it
SA
would be of no consequence”4
स
ु ीम कोट क1 इस जO
ु zम/ ट के मत
ु ाVबक़ यह साVबत होता है क1 ३ ० -४ -बी को साVबत
करने के लए यह थापत करना ज़Eर है क1 मानसक ितथ को न9य Eप म/ Vबगाड़
दया गया हो। जैसा क1 हम जानते ह एक समय था िजस म/ शोभा को रोज़ तंग करा जाता
S
एक और लडमाक जुOzम/ ट म/ स
ु ीम कोट ने कहा था क1 :
M
“…the circumstantial evidence showed that wife was compelled to take the extreme
step of committing suicide as the accused person had subjected her to cruelty by
H
constant taunts, maltreatment and also by alleging that she had been carrying an
illegitimate child. The suicide was committed within 7 years after the marriage and
4
Hiralal vs. State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi)
तवाद के प म
9
the Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 113-B could be
drawn..”5
E
साफ़ संध है िजस से यह पता लगता है क1 दहे ज़ क1 मांग और दय
ु यवाहर से शोभा के
PL
पास आ9मह9या करने के अलावा और कोई चारा नहं था।
M
SA
S
C
M
H
5
Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh
तवाद के प म
10
3. >या शोभा के साथ ूरतापव
ू क
, Nयवहार Oकया गया और >या आरोपी भारतीय
E
धारा 498-ए म/ दोषी ठहराने के लए एक त99व का होना मह99वपण
ू है क1 औरत
PL
क1 ओर Cूरता से यवहार 4कया गया हो। स
ु ीम कोट ने इस वषय पर एक
जुOzम/ ट म/ कहा है क1 :
●
M
“Under the statutory provision cruelty includes both physical and mental cruelty.
The legal conception of cruelty and the kind of degree of cruelty necessary to
SA
amount to a matrimonial offence has not been defined under the Act. Probably, the
Legislature has advisedly refrained from making any attempt at giving a
comprehensive definition of the expression that may cover all cases, realising the
danger in making such attempt. The accepted legal meaning in England as also in
India of this expression, which is rather difficult to define, had been 'conduct of
such character as to have caused danger to life, limb or health (bodily or mental), or
as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger.”6
S
स
ु ीम कोट के इस नद श Oवारा यह साVबत होता है क1 Cूरता तब लागू होगी जब ऐसा
C
इस केस म/ जो भी सबत
ू ह वो साफ़ यह दखाती ह क1 :
H
6
Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, Appeal (C) 3930 of 2002
तवाद के प म
11
१. आरोपी के कम और Cूरता से शोभा क1 मानसक ितथ म/ एक न9य
बदलाव आया है
E
२.यह मानसक ितथ को Cूरता और टाचर कहलाया जा सकता है
PL
“Cruelty therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to
cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or
injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be
distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on
the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of
M
the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live
with the other. In the instant case both the trial court as well as the High Court have
found on facts that the wife had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed
to the respondent. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts cannot be
SA
disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in
support thereof clearly shows that the allegations, even if held to have been proved,
would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the
respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family
life."7
S
नामम
ु 4कन हो गया था और दहे ज़ क1 मांग कम होने के बाद भी उसको
M
घट
ु न म/ जीना पद रहा था िजस से वो हमेशा एक म/ टल टाचर झेलती
H
रहती थी।
7
Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73
तवाद के प म
12
"The court has to come to a conclusion whether the acts committed by the counter-
petitioner amount to cruelty, and it is to be assessed having regard to the status of the
parties in social life, their customs, traditions and other similar circumstances. Having
regard to the sanctity and importance of marriages in a community life, the court should
consider whether the conduct of the counter-petitioner is such that it has become
intolerable for the petitioner to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and
then only the court can find that there is cruelty on the part of the counter- petitioner.
E
This is to be judged not from a solitary incident, but on an overall consideration of all
relevant circumstances."8
PL
एवड/स एLट यह कहता है क1 :
● M
113A. 3[ Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the
question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed
SA
suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may
presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation.--
For the purposes of this section," cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section
498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ).]9
S
दय
ु यवाहर से शोभा के पास आ9मह9या करने के अलावा और कोई चारा नहं था।
H
8
G.V.N.Kameswara Rao vs. G.Jabilli, (2002) 2 SCC 296
9
Section 113B, Evidence Act 1872
तवाद के प म
13
ाथ,ना
● तत
ु त^य> के काश म/ , तक उ+नत और अधका;रय> को उृ यह अदालत
E
शासन करे क1 :-
PL
● शोभा क1 म9ृ यु संदzध प;रितथओन के तहत हुई थी।
तवा3द का वकल
C
M
H
तवाद के प म 14