Category: Dowry Death

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304-B and 498-A) — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA, 1961) — Sections 3 and 4 — Dowry Death — Appeal against acquittal — Setting aside High Court’s acquittal and restoring Trial Court’s conviction — Essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC established by consistent prosecution evidence regarding dowry demand (motorcycle, TV, and cash) and continuous harassment — “Soon before death” liberally construed to emphasize nexus between death and dowry-related cruelty — Evidence of witnesses, even with minor inconsistencies, held reliable and sufficient to prove guilt; minor contradictions or use of words like ‘happily’ by witnesses do not discredit the substratum of the prosecution case proving continuous dowry harassment leading to death. (Paras 1, 14.1, 16.1, 16.2, 17, 18, 20, 22)

2025 INSC 1435 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. Vs. AJMAL BEG ETC ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Quashing of FIR — Abuse of process of law — FIR filed by respondent-wife after divorce proceedings initiated by appellant-husband and a foreign court order for child’s return — Respondent’s conduct questionable regarding child’s return to Australia and allegations in the complaint not supporting the offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC as defined — FIR quashed as a retaliatory measure and abuse of process.

2025 INSC 1128 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NITIN AHLUWALIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Conviction for Section 304-B IPC upheld based on proven unnatural death within 1.5 years of marriage and consistent evidence of continuous dowry harassment soon before death. Prosecution established essential ingredients invoking Section 113-B presumption, which accused failed to rebut with credible defence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIRENDER PAL @ VIPIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ( Before : Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s). No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 — The appellant was convicted for harassing his wife for dowry — The High Court modified the sentence from three years to two years imprisonment — The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 3 months) and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the wife.

2025 INSC 106 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. VENKATESWARAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.…

Dying declaration of the deceased would clearly indicate that deceased was mentally traumatized and she was unable to tolerate the torture and harassment meted out by the accused person on account of which she committed suicide – It is this taunting or mental torture which she could not withstand and forced her to commit suicide by self-immolation – Accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC though charge was not framed – Appellants are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone – Appeal allowed in part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARANAGOUDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

You missed

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 166, 168 — Compensation — Assessment of annual income of deceased/claimant on the basis of Income Tax Returns — Whether the ITR of the previous year alone, or the average of the previous two/three years, is to be taken — Held, no hard and fast formula governs computation of annual income; ITRs, being statutory documents, are an important reference point, but a bifurcation must be made between salaried and self-employed individuals — (i) For salaried individuals, the ITR of the previous year alone ordinarily suffices, since the financial impact of a promotion or salary revision is best reflected in that year’s return; where the deceased had not completed a year in a promoted position, or had not filed a return for that period, the Court may rely on the promotion letter and other corroborative financial statements; (ii) For self-employed persons/those running their own business, the average of the ITRs for up to the previous three years is to be taken as the reference point, having regard to the inherent income fluctuation in such professions — In assessing self-employed income, the surrounding circumstances to be additionally considered include: (a) the nature of the business (including geography and category); (b) its growth pattern and the impact of the death on the business; (c) its potential/future growth, including capital-intensive businesses profitable only at scale; (d) the possibility of negative income in initial years not reflecting the true financial standing; and (e) any other relevant factor — The date of filing of an ITR is also relevant, since income may be inflated after the death/injury; such returns call for closer scrutiny against surrounding financial statements, though they are not to be excluded outright merely for being filed post-death, if adequately supported.