Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 304 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Hira Lal And Ors vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 25 July, 2003

Nur Salim Mallick & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 May, 2024

9. Counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the principle enunciated in this judgment it must be held in the facts of this case that for a period of one year and three months there was no complaint of harassment or cruelty. The words "soon before her death" in Section 304-B connote that the death in all probability should have been the aftermath to such cruelty or harassment. In the instant case, there is no perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry-related harassment or cruelty, and therefore, the harassment or cruelty would not have been the immediate cause of her death. The phrase "soon before her death" must necessarily refer to a period either immediately before her death or a few days earlier. But the phrase indicates 17 that the incriminating events which took place had proximity to her death. He submitted that applying the said test, it must be held that the proximity test has not been fulfilled in this case. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi [(2003) 8 SCC 80 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 2016] . In that case as well the expression "soon before her death" used in Section 304-B IPC fell for consideration. This Court observed that the expression "soon before" would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must exist a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death of the victim. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. In that case, the evidence on record disclosed that though at the time of marriage there was no demand for dowry but subsequently such demands were made and failure to meet those demands resulted in ill-treatment of the victim whereafter a complaint was made before the Crime Against Women Cell and ultimately a reconciliation was brought about on 30-11-1998, in which inter alia, it was resolved that the parties should take up separate residence. The Court concluded that there was no definite evidence about the ill-treatment of the deceased at any time proximate to the date of death of the deceased on 14-4-1999 so as to attract Section 304-B IPC. The basic requirement of cruelty or harassment soon before the death which would have attracted the application of Section 304-B, was absent.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Kuppulakshmi vs Jaiprakash on 26 August, 2016

9. This Court in Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) has observed as under: (SCC pp. 86-87, para 9) 9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. The expression soon before is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. Soon before is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression soon before her death used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression soon before is not defined. A reference to the expression soon before used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term soon before is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G Chockalingam - Full Document

State Of M.P. vs Ramkishan & Another on 1 October, 2014

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in case of Hira Lal Vs. State of (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 (Supra) 8 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01 "A Conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Palo - Full Document

Manoj Shrivastava vs State Of M.P. on 1 October, 2014

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed in case of Hira Lal Vs. State of (Govt. of NCT), Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 80 (Supra) 8 Cr.A No.119/02 and Cr. A. 198/01 "A Conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of 'death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances'.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - S K Palo - Full Document

Fir No. 345/12 State vs . Virender 1 Of 201 on 20 February, 2017

11. To raise the presumption u/s 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, prosecution was supposed to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty 'soon before her death' and criteria of 'soon before death' has been laid down in Hira Lal & Ors V. State (Govt of NCT) Delhi, 2003 (2) JCC 1182 that the interval between dowry demand and incident should not be much. As such, the parameters of 'proximity test' between dowry demand and incident of death of deceased to prove the dowry death could not be satisfied in this case. As such, prosecution has failed to prove any of ingredients of dowry demand or dowry death or cruelty to deceased by accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.Kuppulakshmi vs Jaiprasanth on 26 August, 2016

9. This Court in Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) has observed as under: (SCC pp. 86-87, para 9) 9. A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. The expression soon before is very relevant where Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC are pressed into service. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution. Soon before is a relative term and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period of soon before the occurrence. It would be hazardous to indicate any fixed period, and that brings in the importance of a proximity test both for the proof of an offence of dowry death as well as for raising a presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The expression soon before her death used in the substantive Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. No definite period has been indicated and the expression soon before is not defined. A reference to the expression soon before used in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. It lays down that a court may presume that a man who is in the possession of goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for their possession. The determination of the period which can come within the term soon before is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G Chockalingam - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar vs The State Of Nct Delhi on 31 January, 2020

15. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Hira Lal Vs The State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 IV AD (Delhi) as :­ "No doubt it is the duty of the drivers of commercial vehicles to be cautious on the road, but is equally the responsibility of people driving any type of vehicle to be mindful of the correct manner of use of vehicle on the road in order to avoid collision with the other vehicles. Every person is bound to anticipate the perils normally expected on the road and not challenge his own safety by driving in the dangerous fashion as evidenced in the present case. It is not that in every case road accidnet, the driver of a commercial or heavy vehicle shall be presumed to be guilty of rash and negligent driving and without any iota of evidence against him, he will be deemed guilty from the start of the trial. The Courts instead of acting like a mouthpiece of prosecution, should weigh the evidence meticulously before making the driver of the commercial or heavy vehicle an easy and predictable scapegoat. It is quite possible, as proved in the present case that a person can be himself responsible for his accidental death. The Courts have to be detached from any kind of undue Crl. Appeal No. 60/2019 Mahesh Kumar Vs. State Page 16 of 18 sympathy and public emotion while dealing with every case and until the factum of rash and negligent driving is proved beyond any doubt against the accused, the Courts should desist from jumping to a prejudiced conclusion"
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next