NIMAY SAH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Crl.A. No. 211/2011

Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010152872010

Filing Date

10-May-2010

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 211/2011

Diary Number

15287/2010

Order Date

02-Dec-2020

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2020 INSC 670

Disposal Type

Appeals Allowed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NIMAY SAH

    Adv. APARNA JHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

    Adv. KRISHNANAND PANDEYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Dec-2020

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 02-Dec-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 02-Dec-2020

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  5. 11-Aug-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 11-Aug-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 21-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 16-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 17-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 19-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 17-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 09-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 10-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 211/2011

  14. [ 2020 INSC 670 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Nimay Sah v. State of Jharkhand Decision: The Supreme Court acquitted appellant Nimay Sah, the deceased's brother-in-law, of dowry harassment charges under Section 498-A IPC, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While witnesses testified generally about harassment at the matrimonial home, they failed to specifically name Nimay Sah or provide concrete instances of dowry demands against him. Notably, the deceased's own letters to her brother made no mention of harassment, and most independent witnesses turned hostile. The court concluded the evidence was too vague and insufficient to sustain conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case