Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.09 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hira Lal And Ors vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 25 July, 2003
"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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.252 of 2012 dt.25-04-2014 21
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.252 of 2012 dt.25-04-2014 22
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"
Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Ghasita Sahu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2008
(Emphasis supplied)
(See also: Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of
Assam & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3571; Ghasita Sahu v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 1425; and Rohtash Kumar v.
State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8) SC 181)