//
archives

Dowry

This tag is associated with 7 posts

Sec. 304 B of I.P.C. and sec.113 B of Evidence Act = Suicide was committed soon after 5 days of demand of dowry, with in 7 years of marriage, burden lies on the accused to disprove the case – he can not depend on minor latches of prosecution with out proper foundations – High court rightly convicted the husband and confirmed the acquittal of lower court in respect of other accused = SUKHWINDER SINGH …APPELLANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40964

Minor discrepancies like she said at room , at varanda does not change substance of     the case=   It is true that there can be no compromise  on  basic   legal principles, but, unnecessary weightage should not be  given  to  minor   errors or lapses.  If courts get carried away by every mistake … Continue reading

Sec.304 B, 306 498 A I.P.C. and sec.3 &4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act – Mere demand of dowry in absence of cruelty can not fasten any liability = All family members are not liable for Dowry death case under sec.304 B I.P.C. r/w sec.113 B of Evidence Act, Unless it is proved their active role or passive connivance in committing the offence , no presumption could be drawn automatically against all = Bhola Ram …..Appellant Versus State of Punjab …..Respondent = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40958

Sec.304 B, 306 498 A I.P.C. and sec.3 &4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act –  Mere demand of     dowry in absence of cruelty can not fasten any liability = All family members are not liable for Dowry death case under sec.304 B I.P.C. r/w sec.113 B of Evidence Act, Unless it is proved their … Continue reading

SEC. 304 B , 306 AND 498 A I.P.C. – When wife stated that she committed suicide as she was fed up with the acts of husband with out disclosing the activities – it can not be considered as an offence under sec. 304 B as there is no allegation that soon before her committing suicide the husband harassed her dowry etc., Apex court punished the husband under sec.306 and 498 A I.P.C. = Rajeev Kumar …… Appellant Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40946

SEC. 304 B , 306 AND 498 A I.P.C. – When wife stated that she committed suicide as she     was fed up with the acts of husband with out disclosing the activities – it can not be considered as an offence under sec. 304 B as there is no allegation that soon before her committing suicide the … Continue reading

Sec.306 of I.P.C. but not under sec.304 B I.P.C. – suicide of wife = STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GIRIDHARI LAL Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40859

When there is no evidence that the suicide was committed due to curelty and harassment by her husband for dowry soon before her death, Accused is liable to be punished only under sec.306 of I.P.C. but not under sec.304 B I.P.C. =         whether Babita’s death is  an  instance  of   dowry … Continue reading

When the prosecution failed to prove the basic case of harassment or demand of dowry , it was not open to convict the accused on presumption referring to sec.113 A or 113 B of the Evidence Act = We find that there are contradictory statements which cannot be stated to be a minor contradiction as was suggested by the learned Addl.SSP before the Appellate Court. The improvement in the statements of PW.1 and 12 is clear. The allegation about the demand of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/­ and 800 gms. of gold ornaments and harassment and torture made by accused No.1 on deceased was not disclosed and mentioned in the First Information Report or before the Tahsildar(PW.21) who recorded the initial evidence. In Ex.P.2 and complaint Ex.P.3 absolutely there is no evidence to show that Rs.25, 000/­ was demanded and Rs.10,000/­ was given to accused No.1 either at Benali or at Mysore. Further, payment of Rs.50,000/­ and 500 gms. of gold to accused No.1 as dowry was also not established beyond reasonable doubt. Once the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry and the evidence brought on record were doubted by the trial court, it was not open to the High Court to convict accused No.1 on presumption referring to Section 113­A or 113­B of the Evidence Act. The presumption of innocence of the accused being primary factor, in absence of exceptional compelling circumstances and perversity of the judgment, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the judgment of the trial court in a routine manner. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 4th January, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the High Court, allow the appeal by restoring the judgment dated 2nd August, 1999 of the trial court. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40515 Page 11REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2006S. ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR GANNA  … APPELLANTVERUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA … RESPONDENTJ U D G M E N TSUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.This   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the   appellantagainst   the   judgment   dated   4th  January,   2006   in   CriminalAppeal No.1042 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judgeof the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, whereby thelearned   Single   Judge   reversed   the   judgment   of   acquittaldated 2nd  August, 1999 passed by the Xth Additional CitySessions Judge at Bangalore in S.C.No.86 /96 and convictedand sentenced the appellant for the offences under Section304­B and Section 498­A of the IPC.Page 22The   Appellate   Court   imposed … Continue reading

subsequent allegations by parents not valid=The victim after sustaining burning injuries gave statement to the police to the effect that she sustained the burns in accidental fire when she was lighting wooden stove by pouring kerosene in it with a mug. The said statement of the victim-Ex.P.5 was registered by the police as FIR in this case. On that basis, originally the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It is stated that the victim also gave similar statement to the Magistrate as dying declaration. But the said dying declaration was not marked by examining the Magistrate. Therefore, the lower Court should not have placed reliance on such dying declaration. During life time of the victim she did not go back on Ex.P.5 – statement given to the police. Subsequent to the death of the victim, parents and relations alleged dowry harassment against the accused. – MMMLAWREPORT

subsequent allegations by parents not valid=The victim after sustaining burning injuries gave statement to the police to the effect that she sustained the burns in accidental fire when she was lighting wooden stove by pouring kerosene in it with a mug. The said statement of the victim-Ex.P.5 was registered by the police as FIR in … Continue reading

MISUSE OF SEC.498A- There are no specific allegations of any of the petitioners herein subjecting the second respondent to harassment by way of beating or abusing her, much less demanding to bring Rs.1.00 lakh towards additional dowry. If the alleged additional dowry is brought, then none of brothers, sisters and brothers-in-law would be beneficiaries and they would not get any share in that additional dowry. 4. The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand1 took note of the fact on some unscrupulous wives putting all family members of the husband to harassment by way of giving report alleging offence under Section 498 (A) IPC. The Supreme Court pointed out role of the courts as follows: “At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion.” 5. The Supreme Court also pointed out role of advocates and also need for change of legislation on this aspect. If allegations in the report given by the second respondent are scrutinized with pragmatic approach contemplated by the Supreme Court, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations are made against all the petitioners who are residents of different places and different localities including a brother who is no more even by the date of giving report by the second respondent to the police. Such indiscriminate activity on the part of the second respondent, cannot be supported by this Court. Registration of case on report of the second respondent by the police against the petitioners herein is nothing short of abuse of process of criminal law.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIC SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Criminal Petition No.4277 of 2009 01-10-2010 Shaik Kaleemullah & 9 others. The State AP, rep. by its P.P. High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Through P.S. Town IV, Nizamabad and another. Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan Counsel for respondent No.1: Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,166 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com