Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.15 seconds)

Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 1998

In Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (1998) CrLJ 1144 SC, there was a demand of scooter and fridge after the marriage which were not made by the parents of the bride, lead to her harassment and ill treatment by husband and his relatives. It was held that such demand constitutes a "dowry demand" which is punishable under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 304B IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 523 - A P Misra - Full Document

Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State Of Haryana on 9 January, 2015

In Sher Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2015 (1) Scale 250, the Apex Court observed "we would prefer to interpret the word 'soon' which finds place in Section 304B, not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, instead it should be a continuing cause for the death under Section 304B IPC or the suicide under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these concomitant are proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by guilt of the accused, thereby transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt beyond reasonable doubt".
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 136 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next