Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Vishnu Dutt @ Bishna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 February, 2025 cites

Karan Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 28 May, 2013

Recently, in the recent case of Karan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 514, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of the prosecution's responsibility to prove all essential ingredients of dowry death and cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that in cases involving dowry-related offenses, including dowry death and cruelty, the prosecution must establish the demand for dowry, the cruelty inflicted, and the causal connection between these factors and the death. If the prosecution fails to provide convincing evidence on any of these elements, it will result in the acquittal of the accused. This decision underscores the need for a thorough and strong evidentiary foundation to secure convictions in such sensitive and complex cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the essential ingredients of the Section 304B of IPC, made observations as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 47 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953

"16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word "deemed" in Section 304-B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well-nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word "shown" is used as synonymous to "prove" and the word "presume" as freely interchangeable with the word "deemed". In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word "deem" to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory [AIR 1953 SC 333] and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326] , requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word "deemed" so as to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the later oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word "shown" in Section 304-B IPC as to, in fact, connote "prove". In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a "dowry death" has occurred, namely, (Downloaded on 04/02/2025 at 09:59:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:4969] (13 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 191 - M P Sastri - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S. Arooran Sugars Ltd on 31 October, 1996

"16. As is already noted above, Section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B IPC were introduced into their respective statutes simultaneously and, therefore, it must ordinarily be assumed that Parliament intentionally used the word "deemed" in Section 304-B to distinguish this provision from the others. In actuality, however, it is well-nigh impossible to give a sensible and legally acceptable meaning to these provisions, unless the word "shown" is used as synonymous to "prove" and the word "presume" as freely interchangeable with the word "deemed". In the realm of civil and fiscal law, it is not difficult to import the ordinary meaning of the word "deem" to denote a set of circumstances which call to be construed contrary to what they actually are. In criminal legislation, however, it is unpalatable to adopt this approach by rote. We have the high authority of the Constitution Bench of this Court both in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory [AIR 1953 SC 333] and State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd. [(1997) 1 SCC 326] , requiring the Court to ascertain the purpose behind the statutory fiction brought about by the use of the word "deemed" so as to give full effect to the legislation and carry it to its logical conclusion. We may add that it is generally posited that there are rebuttable as well as irrebuttable presumptions, the later oftentimes assuming an artificiality as actuality by means of a deeming provision. It is abhorrent to criminal jurisprudence to adjudicate a person guilty of an offence even though he had neither intention to commit it nor active participation in its commission. It is after deep cogitation that we consider it imperative to construe the word "shown" in Section 304-B IPC as to, in fact, connote "prove". In other words, it is for the prosecution to prove that a "dowry death" has occurred, namely, (Downloaded on 04/02/2025 at 09:59:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:4969] (13 of 17) [CRLAS-1044/2024]
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 61 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next