Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High 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