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

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