Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 296 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Satvir Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 27 September, 2001
(51) In the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
2001 (4) Crimes 45 while dealing with this issue, the Hon"ble Supreme
Court, inter alia, observed as under:
Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 September, 1973
(60) In another case reported as Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773, it was observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India as under:
St. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, FIR No. 29/2010, PS Bhalswa Dairy Page No. 45 of 63
".....Another golden thread which runs through the web
of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to
the accused should be adopted. This principle has a
special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial
evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that
unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
is inconsistent with that of this innocence, the court
should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the
accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the
court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt
of the accused, the accused must have benefit of that
doubt........
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998
St. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, FIR No. 29/2010, PS Bhalswa Dairy Page No. 39 of 63
(50) In the case of Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
reported in AIR 1998 SC 958, the Apex Court has specifically held
demand of T.V., Fridge, etc. though not agreed to be given or promised or
even demanded prior to or at the time of marriage, to be a demand for
dowry for the purpose of Section 304B of IPC. If cash or some property,
etc. is demanded by the boy or his family members, after marriage, saying
that they were expecting such cash, property, etc. to be given in marriage,
and the girl, or her parents or any other person related or connected to her
promise to fulfill such a demand, that also may fall within the purview of
dowry, as the promise though made after marriage, would nevertheless be
referrable to the marriage, having been made with a view to preserve the
marriage. In case, if the demand is made after marriage and it is in respect
of a property or valuable security, which was not demanded, was not
expected to be given and also was not in contemplation at any time up to
solemnization of marriage, demand of such cash, property or valuable
security, etc. cannot be said to be in connection with the marriage and,
therefore, would not constitute demand of dowry.