Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

When a woman commits an offence by torturing another woman, it is a more serious offence – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex Court observed that A lady like the appellant should have been more empathetic when it came to her daughter-in-law. When a woman commits an offence by torturing another woman, such as her daughter-in-law, it is a more serious offence. Mother-in-daughter-in-law law's would be at risk if another lady, such as the mother-in-law herein, does not protect the other lady Even the victim's husband was away at the time of the incident. With her husband's family, the victim was left to fend for herself. Since she is her daughter's mom, the appellant had a duty to protect and care for her daughter-in-law rather than harass and/or torture and/or cruelly treat her on any other matter, such as jewels or anything else. As a result, the appellant does not need any leniency in this case.

Headnote -Sections 498A and 306 IPC - Facts - a complaint was lodged by mother of the victim therein alleging that all the accused – her son-in-law, his mother, her daughter and father-in-law harassed - torture/cruelty for want of jewels.  It was alleged that due to which her daughter immolated herself - accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Trial court convicted Husband , Mother-in-law and Sister-in-law – accused preferred appeal to High Court – partly allowed by Setaside the conviction under Section 306 IPC and maintained the conviction under 498A IPC only against Mother-in-law – preferred appeal to Supreme court – Held – PW 1 and 2 after detailed cross-examination have stood by what they have stated - concurrent findings of  both the Courts - the harassment and/or torture and/or cruelty by the appellant – with regards to jewels - held guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC –  reduce the sentence from one year R.I. to three months R.I. with fine - Appeal Partly Allowed. 

D.D- JANUARY 11, 2022.

Meera   Versus State By the Inspector of Police   Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai 

Latest Legal News