Skip to main content

Demanding dowry not enough for conviction in dowry death case: Supreme Court

Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to bring about a conviction in a dowry death case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held saying that it must be proved that victim had been treated with cruelty or harassed for it.

"Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to bring about a conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. As held in Kans Raj case a dowry death victim should also have been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband or a relative," a bench of justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B Lokur said.

The bench also expressed concern over delay in disposing of the appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction in dowry death of his sister-in-law which took nine years.

Referring to the delay in dispoal of cases, the court quipped, "It is high time those of us who are judges of this court and decision makers also become policy makers", without elaborating.

The bench acquitted the man Bhola Nath in the case saying that family members cannot be made accused in dowry death case just because they stay together under one floor and there must sufficient evidence against each of them.

"While these persons may be staying together, it does not lead to any positive conclusion that each one of them was actively involved in demanding additional dowry from Janki Devi (victim) and also behaving in a cruel or humiliating manner towards her resulting in her consuming poison to end her life," the bench said.

The court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict which had convicted Bhola Nath in the dowry death case.

"In this case, even assuming the silent or conniving participation of Bhola Nath in the demands for dowry, there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that he actively or passively treated victim with cruelty or harassed her in connection with, or for, dowry.

"The High Court has, unfortunately, not adverted to this ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC or even considered it," the bench said.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-demanding-dowry-not-enough-for-conviction-in-dowry-death-case-supreme-court-1918161

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more