Skip to main content

Dowry demand can be made any time: SC

Demand for dowry can be made at any time and not necessarily before marriage, the Supreme Court has said while upholding the life term awarded to a man for poisoning and burning his wife to death in 1997.

A bench of justices MY Eqbal and Pinaki Chandra Ghose rejected the plea that the accused did not demand any dowry before marriage and seeking it after tying the nuptial knot was out of question.

Referring to an earlier judgement, it said the social evil of dowry is prevalent in Indian society and the defence that it was not sought before the marriage "does not hold water. The demand for dowry can be made at any time and not necessarily before marriage."

The apex court dismissed the plea of Uttarakhand native Bhim Singh and his family members noting that there was no missing link in the circumstantial evidence brought by the prosecution.

"There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

"Whenever there is a break in the chain of circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt... There is no missing link in circumstantial evidence put forth by the prosecution, and hence the accused are not entitled to benefit of doubt," the bench said.

According to the prosecution, Bhim was married to Prema Devi in May, 1997.

When she went to her in-laws' house after marriage, her husband and in-laws taunted and tortured her by saying that she had brought nothing in dowry, it said.

On September 26, 1997, Prema was administered some toxic substance due to which she died and later on she was burnt, it added.

The trial court had held Bhim and his brother guilty of offence 304-B (dowry death) of IPC and sentenced them to life, Section 498-A (cruelty) of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Article referred: http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/dowry-demand-can-be-made-any-time-sc_1546807.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even