Skip to main content

'Relative' of husband must be by blood, marriage or adoption: SC

A person cannot be treated as a relative for prosecuting him in a dowry death case unless he is related to the husband by "blood, marriage or adoption", the Supreme Court has held.

The apex court, however, made it clear this does not mean that he/she cannot be tried for any other offence like abetment of suicide.

"We have no manner of doubt that the word 'relative of the husband' in Section 304B (dowry death) of the IPC would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption," a bench of justices C K Prasad and P C Ghose said.

The court passed the order while deciding the appeal filed by Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision of setting aside the summons issued against a man as an accused in a dowry death case.

The man was summoned as an accused in the case by the trial court which had held that he was a relative of the husband of the deceased woman and was also involved in the offence.

However, the apex court said the man, who was the brother of aunt of the victim's husband, does not fall in the definition of relative of husband under the statute.

The bench noted that Section 304B of the IPC gives an impression that "when a woman dies by any burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of the marriage, her husband or any relative of her husband shall be deemed to have committed the offence of dowry death if it is shown that soon before the death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, or by any relative of her husband".

This section, therefore, exposes the husband of the woman or any relative of her husband for the commission of offence of the dowry death, it noted.

The apex court upheld the high court order and said,"When we apply this principle the respondent herein is not related to the husband of the deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption."

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Relative-of-husband-must-be-by-blood-marriage-or-adoption-SC/articleshow/37743171.cms?intenttarget=no&utm_source=TOI_AShow_OBWidget&utm_medium=Int_Ref&utm_campaign=TOI_AShow

Comments

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...