17. On an analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and on hearing the learned counsel for both sides at length, according to me the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants for commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 4 D.P. Act cannot be sustained in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding ‘torture’ or ‘harassment’ to the victim woman vis-a-vis demand of dowry and the same is to be set aside and the appeal is bound to succeed.
Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra vs State on 28 August, 2003 HC of Orissa
![You are currently viewing Benumadhab Padhi Mohapatra vs State on 28 August, 2003 HC of Orissa](https://www.menwelfare.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/498a-ipc.jpg)
- Post published:December 16, 2021
- Post category:498A
- Post comments:0 Comments
- Post last modified:December 16, 2021
You Might Also Like
![Read more about the article Ishwar Singhal @ Tinu And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Allahabad HC on 11 January, 2022](https://www.menwelfare.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/498a-ipc-300x173.jpg)
Ishwar Singhal @ Tinu And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Allahabad HC on 11 January, 2022
![Read more about the article Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078 SC Crl. Appeal No. 463 of 1996](https://www.menwelfare.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/498a-ipc-300x173.jpg)
Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078 SC Crl. Appeal No. 463 of 1996
![Read more about the article Sukhamay Mondal and ors vs the state of West Bengal on 6 August 2018 HC of Calcutta (Appellete side ) C.r.r 2900 of 2016](https://www.menwelfare.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/498a-ipc-300x173.jpg)