Category: Dowry Death

Trial court, committed a patent error in discarding the dying declaration and the other material evidence, discussed hereinabove. Therefore, the interference by the High Court in the appeal against the acquittal of the appellant and recording the finding of his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, on consideration of the evidence, is justified.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY MOHAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Dowry Death–Soon before death–Words “Soon before her death” occurring in section 304-B of Penal Code, are to be understood in relative and flexible sense–Those words cannot be construed as lying down a rigid period of time to be mechanically applied in each case–Whether or not the cruelty or harassment meted out to the victim for or in connection with the demand of dowry was soon before her death and the proximate cause of her death, under abnormal circumstances, would depend upon the facts of each case–There can be no fixed period of time in this regard–Penal Code, 1860, Section 304-B.  

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 88 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2006…

Dowry death–No evidence on record to show that the cruelty or harassment was meted out to her for brining insufficient dowry–Ingredient of section 304-B cannot be said to have been proved. Dowry–Meaning of–Giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security in connection with marriage of the parties–Customary payment in connection with birth of a child and other ceremonies are not covered.

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 2005…

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S. 4–Penal Code, 1860, S. 498-A and 304-B–Evidence Act, 1872, S. 113-B–Dowry Death–Cruelty–Demand of Dowry–Essential ingredients :- (i) Death is caused in unnatural circumstances. (ii) Death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage of the deceased. (iii) It needs to be shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  681 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal Appeal No. 160 Of 2006…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B~Dowry Death-Soon before Death- What must be borne in mind is that the word “soon” does not mean “immediate”–A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the enactment of Section 304-B IPC would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression—Time-lags may differ from case to case—All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under Section 304-B. 

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2735 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1607 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M.…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.