MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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