Murdering husband can't keep dowry item - P&H HC

 The P&H HC, a husband who is found guilty of killing his wife cannot keep a dowry item.

The appeal contesting the judgement made by the Additional Sessions Judge in which the Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC was being handled by the bench of Justices M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Sukhvinder Kaur.

Ram Naresh Singh, the deceased's father, alleged that his daughter's in-laws and her husband began making fun of her for having less money and for not having a vehicle in her dowry after they got married. They threatened to have her killed if she didn't get more dowry from her parents.

He was adamant that his daughter Shweta Singh's death should be investigated and legal action taken against her husband Sandeep Tomar, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. FIR was filed in accordance with IPC Section 304-B/34.

The appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the IPC, and the Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to life in jail without the possibility of parole and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

Whether or not to interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's order was the question up for discussion before the bench.

The bench declared that although the accused/appellant claimed to be the owner of these dowry items, he had not submitted any evidence to support this claim. The precise argument is that the trial court did not understand that, according to Section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, a wife's possessions pass to her husband and children after her death.

The High Court noted that Shweta Singh passed away just seven years after getting married. There was no problem outside of their marriage. The records show that she passed away outside of what would be expected to happen naturally. As a result, the appellant's situation clearly comes within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, keeping the complainant in custody of the dowry items. By referring to the requirements of Hindu Law related to Succession, the stipulations of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be disregarded.

The appeal contesting the judgement made by the Additional Sessions Judge in which the Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC was being handled by the bench of Justices M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Sukhvinder Kaur.

Ram Naresh Singh, the deceased's father, alleged that his daughter's in-laws and her husband began making fun of her for having less money and for not having a vehicle in her dowry after they got married. They threatened to have her killed if she didn't get more dowry from her parents.

He was adamant that his daughter Shweta Singh's death should be investigated and legal action taken against her husband Sandeep Tomar, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. FIR was filed in accordance with IPC Section 304-B/34.

The appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the IPC, and the Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to life in jail without the possibility of parole and a fine of Rs. 10,000.

Whether or not to interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge's order was the question up for discussion before the bench.

The bench declared that although the accused/appellant claimed to be the owner of these dowry items, he had not submitted any evidence to support this claim. The precise argument is that the trial court did not understand that, according to Section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, a wife's possessions pass to her husband and children after her death.

The High Court noted that Shweta Singh passed away just seven years after getting married. There was no problem outside of their marriage. The records show that she passed away outside of what would be expected to happen naturally. As a result, the appellant's situation clearly comes within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, keeping the complainant in custody of the dowry items. By referring to the requirements of Hindu Law related to Succession, the stipulations of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be disregarded.

According to the bench, the trial Court correctly relied on the ruling in Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, which determined that the deceased person's father would continue to own the dowry items even if the spouse was found not guilty.

According to the High Court, the accused husband was found guilty by the trial court of killing his wife Shweta Singh in accordance with Section 302 IPC. The contested order is legitimate and lawful.

The bench dismissed the appeal in light of the aforementioned.

Sandeep Tomar vs State of Punjab