Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Accused of dowry death Cases must be dealt with iron hand: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court stated in a recent decision (Ajhola Devi and Others v. State of Jharkhand) that the introduction of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was intended to lessen the possibility of dowry death.

The community must be made aware, a division bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held, that anyone found guilty of the crime of dowry death will face severe punishment.

"According to Section 304B, the dowry killing offence is a crime against society. The public must receive a clear message that anyone found guilty of dowry death or other offences listed in the Dowry Prohibition Act will face severe punishment "the Court declared.

The court upheld the Jharkhand High Court's judgement to dole down a 10-year solitary confinement sentence to the deceased woman's mother- and father-in-law.

The appellant-accused had petitioned the supreme court, claiming that a lighter sentence might be given to them due to their advanced age.

The court took note of the fact that the deceased woman had gone away less than a year after getting married, and the prosecution had shown and demonstrated that she had requested dowry.

"The false case or theory put forth by the accused that the deceased died as a result of diarrhoea by the defence has not been substantiated or confirmed. Seven years in prison is the minimum penalty for dowry death, and life in prison is the maximum. The offender was given a 10-year sentence of solitary incarceration by the trial court "The Court said.

Additionally, it was claimed that the inclusion of Section 304B was done with the intention of taking a strong stance against the possibility of dowry death "When handling circumstances under Section 304B, this legislative objective must be taken into account. According to Section 304B, the dowry death offence constitutes a crime against society. Such crimes have a serious detrimental impact on society "the outlined sequence.

The Court came to the conclusion that a 10-year sentence was not excessive in light of the offence committed based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

It thus rejected the appeal.

Ajhola Devi and Another

vs

State of Jharkhand

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Ajhola_Devi_and_Another_v__State_of_Jharkhand.pdf"]

Latest Legal News