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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more