Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.03 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Kumar Jain vs State Of Delhi on 16 December, 2010
10.Apart the aforesaid merely perusing the postmortem report, Ex. P-4, it is
apparent that while giving the opinion regarding cause of death, Dr. K.K.
Sohit, (PW-1) has stated in such report that "No definite opinion can be
given about cause of death of Mamta Bai, twenty years, W/o Jahar Singh
Lodhi, R/o village Gangon, P.S. Malthon, the viscera is being preserved
and sealed and the same was given to the Police Constable for chemical
examination. The duration of time of death is within twelve hours from
the commencement of the postmortem examination." So according to
aforesaid report and the depositions of said Doctor, it has not been
established on record that the deceased had died due to unnatural death
or suicidal death. So in such premises, on the basis of available medical
evidence, it could not be deemed or assumed that the deceased died due
to unnatural death. As per settled propositions to hold the conviction
against the appellant under Section 304-B of IPC, the prosecution is
bound to prove the fact that the deceased had died due to unnatural
death and soon before death, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused
and in the lack of such evidence, the person like appellant in connection
of demand of dowry, the appellant could not have been convicted under
Section 304-B of IPC. My such approach is based on the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs. State
of Delhi reported in AIR 2011 SC 363 in which it was held as under:-
Tarsem Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2008
11.Besides the aforesaid cited case also in view of the principle laid down by
the Apex Court in the matter of Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in AIR 2009 SC 1454 the impugned conviction under Section
304-B of IPC could not be sustained. In this cited case the Apex Court has
held as under:-
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Akula Ravinder And Others vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 January, 1991
Under Section 304-B it is 'dowry death' that is
punishable and such death should have occurred
within seven years of marriage. No such period is
mentioned in Section 498-A. A person charged and
acquitted under Section 304-B can be convicted under
Section 498-A without that charge being there, if such
a case is made out. If the case is established, there
can be a conviction under both the sections. (See
Akula Ravinder v. The State of A. P.). (1991 Supp.
(2) SCC 99). Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of
the Evidence Act includes in their amplitude past
events of cruelty. Period of operation of Section 113-A
of the Evidence Act is seven years, presumption arises
as to dowry death when a woman committed suicide
within a period of seven years from the date of
marriage.