Cinema ticket

Agree with above advices.

Moreover, try to snach child is not 498a.

These days, what I noticed the wife tries to file or tries to make the case of 498A stronger by any means. Do not worry about the case too much as the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Get the AB first & fight to get the justice. Apart from that, start collecting the evidences from your end.

Cinema ticket does not bear the name of the holder. So, you need to show that you were the one who was actually present in the cinema hall. So, try to gather the evidences that support/corroborate it.

Also, if you had booked the ticket online, then the transaction history will be useful. 

I can infer that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution side. But, it will be good to prepare & collect evidences from your end too.

one has to see exat allegation. 498a allegation cannot be based on a single action single time by single person.  It canot without seeing whole allegation, be assumed as to what extant that cinema ticket will help you.

Having a cinema ticket just does not  prove that it was you and you alone who went to the hall and remained present there for all the three hours.

Further in the past many criminals bought a cinema ticket entered hall, came out  committed a crime and went backt to cinema, committed unruly scene at cinema and even got arrested. This is age old trick faile dmany times.

Sir/Madam

I have some selfie and photo inside and outside the cinema hall. Can I show them as evidence to prove that I am the one who owned the ticket.One of the photo shows the banner of the cinema " Yeh Jawani hai Deewani" on top of the cinema hall with date.

Shyamal

The question remains the same as mentioned by Sudhir Sir.

It will show that you were in the cinema hall but it does not prove that you remained present there for all the three hours.

Take the help of I/O to get the footage of CCTV. of going in to the hall and then coming out,

Agree with the opinions. If a cinema ticket is all you are relying on, you'd be on a very thin ice indeed. For what its worth, which is nothing much to say by way of a precedent, but even so (actually, it ain't even a precedent at all (!) just a hint of a line of thinking that 'a common man of reasonable prudence' may take, as they say):

----------------------

Mohd. Rafi Alias Mohd. Rafiq vs State (Delhi Administration) on 22 March, 1974
Equivalent citations: 10 (1974) DLT 293

(20) We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the appellant's counsel. It is not necessary that a person who goes to see a cinema show must destroy the used tickets immediately after the show is over. When one enters the auditorium of a cinema house tickets are checked and the checked tickets are required to be retained till the end of the show for subsequent checking. if necessary. Used tickets may remain with the person who had them even after the cinema show is over, sometimes for days. The statement of Riazuddin and Safiquddin about their going to Odeon cinema and seeing the cinema show which started at 6.30 p.m. cannot, therefore, be disbelieved merely because Riazuddin retained the used cinema tickets and did not destroy those immediately after the cinema show was over.

(21) Riazuddin and Sufiquddin cannot as well be dubbed as unreliable witnesses because Riazuddin produced the cinema tickets to the investigating officer on November 19, 1972. It is quite likely that Riazuddin did not attach any importance to the used cinema tickets which were with him and, therefore, did not hand these over to the investigating officer at the time when his statement was recorded in the hospital. It is in the statement of Sub-inspector Partap Singh that it was on the evening of November 18. 1972 that he told Riazuddin to produce the used cinema tickets and that thereafter the tickets were produced before him on the next day at about 3 or 4 p.m. It follows that the used cinema tickets were produced by Riazuddin only after the investigating officer thought of asking for those being produced. That the cinema tickets so produced (Exhibits P-4 and P-5) had been issued for the 6.30 p.m. cinema show on November 17, 1972 stands fully established from the evidence of the booking-clerk, Ashok Kumar (P.W. 5).

(22) Riazuddin and Safiqudin had gone together to see the cinema show on November 17, 1972 and after the show was over they travelled in a three-wheeler scooter up to Gali Marwari, Qasabpura. A three wheeler scooter is a fairly fast conveyance and there was nothing improbable in their reaching the place of occurrence by about 10 p.m. and to he in a position first to see Mohd Rafi abusing the deceased and afterwards seeing him causing injuries, which proved fatal.

-----------------------

THANK YOU SIR/MADAM

SHYAMAL