Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 November, 2012
30. Reference in this connection can be made to a recent decision of this Court in Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P., in which, after analysing various decisions on the point, this Court endorsed the following view taken in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi): (Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat case, SCC p. 482, para 15)
K.L. Venkateswar Rao vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 14 October, 2003
7.The Apex Court in the second judgment report in (2014) 2 SCC 240 Tummala Venkateswar Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh observed in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 14 are as follows :-
Hira Lal And Ors vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 25 July, 2003
9. This Court in Hira Lal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) has observed as under: (SCC pp. 86-87, para 9)
9. 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 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 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 is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kailash vs State Of M.P on 29 September, 2006
8. This Court in Kailash v. State of M.P. has observed as under: (SCC pp. 670-71, para 10)
10. No presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would be drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the alleged demand, cruelty or harassment the dispute stood resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment thereafter. Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused a defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death of the victim. This is so because the expression used in the relevant provision is soon before. The expression is a relative term which is required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. The expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. It cannot be said that the term soon before is synonymous with the term immediately before. This is because of what is stated in Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. The determination of the period which can come within the term soon before is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question.