Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Smt. Shanti And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 13 November, 1990
14. As has been held in Smt. Shanti and Another vs.
State of Haryana reported in (1991) 1 SCC 371 (paragraph
State Of Karnataka vs M.V. Manjunathegowda & Anr on 7 January, 2003
24. Dowry killing is a crime and menace of its own kind.
This requires to be eliminated from society. The legislative
intent is clear and that is to curb the menace of dowry death
with a firm hand. As has been held in State of Karnataka
vs. M.V. Manjunathegowda and Another reported in
(2003) 2 SCC 188 (para 25) that: "The practice of giving and
demanding dowry is a social evil having deleterious effect on
the entire civilized society and has to be condemned by the
strong hands of the judiciary. Despite various amendments
providing deterrent punishment with a view to curb the
increasing menace of dowry deaths, the evil practice of dowry
remains unabated. The Court cannot be oblivious to the
intendment of the legislature and the purpose for which the
enactment of the law and amendment has been effected.
Every court must be sensitized to the enactment of the law
and the purpose for which it is made by the legislature,
keeping in view the evil practice of giving and taking dowry,
which is having a deleterious effect on the civilized society. It
must be given a meaningful interpretation so as to advance
the cause of interest of the society as a whole. No leniency is
warranted to the perpetrator of the crime against the
society."
Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2015
25. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the
shortness of duration of the marriage was such that there
could not have been any cruelty inflicted on the deceased
Sushila. I am of the view that there is no substance in this
argument. "Days or months are not what is to be seen. Time
lags may differ from case to case. All that is necessary is that
the demand for dowry or the cruelty or harassment meted
out to the deceased must not be stale but should be a
continuing cause for the death of a married woman under
Section 304B". Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015)
6 SCC 477 (para 24).
Baijnath vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2017
26. As has been held in Baijnath and Ors. Vs State of
Madhya Pradesh (2017) 1 SCC 101 (para 27) the
expression cruelty as explained, contains in its expanse,
apart from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences
precipitated thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. "Be that
as it may, cruelty or harassment by the husband or any
relative of his for or in connection with any demand of dowry
to reiterate is the gravamen of the two offences".
Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Atbir vs Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi on 9 August, 2010
In Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) after an elaborate
consideration of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, the following propositions have been laid
down with regard to the admissibility of a dying declaration:
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State Of Haryana on 9 January, 2015
In Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2015)3 SCC 724 at para 25 it has been held that "The
fundamental and vital question that the Court has to ask
itself and find a solid answer to, is whether the evidence even
preponderantly proves that the appellant had treated the
deceased with cruelty connected with dowry demands. It is
only if the answer is in the affirmative will the court have to
weigh the evidence produced by the appellant to discharge
beyond reasonable doubt, the assumption of his deemed
guilt."