SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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