Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that as per the post-mortem report, the death was due to ante-mortem hanging by ligature, but 6 other ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which were not caused by taking the body out of the ligature or carrying it out to the hospital.
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the husband under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC in a dowry death case, rejecting the claim of suicide. The Court held that medical evidence showed a case of homicidal hanging, supported by ante-mortem injuries and absence of typical ligature marks not suicide.
The Court also urged the media to avoid recording statements of the persons who are likely to be potential witnesses or accused, as it may unnecessarily prejudge the outcome on certain issues, which are yet to be investigated.
The Court also took note of the State’s contention that the anticipatory bail was granted in a very hurried manner, as the death occurred on 12 May at night, the post-mortem was conducted on 14 May, the anticipatory bail application was filed on 14 May, and the same was allowed on 15 May.
The Court emphasised that dowry death cases carry statutory presumptions under Section 118, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which cannot be ignored.
Prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2023, Justice Rajesh Bindal served as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.
“The trial court failed to note that only when the prosecution proves the foundational facts and there is evidence to show that cruelty was meted out to the deceased in respect of demand of dowry soon before death, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would arise.”
It is quite understandable that being the deceased’s father, he would have been highly traumatized due to untimely death of his daughter. However, it is quite evident from his first statement that no details of the alleged harassment of the daughter were mentioned.
“Every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from the matrimonial life are not criminal offence. It will take colour of Criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life, because of the harassment.”
“To prove the offence of dowry death, it must be shown that there was cruelty and harassment within 7 years of marriage and that it was meted out for or in connection with, demand for dowry”.
It was not the prosecution’s case that any demand for dowry or any valuable security or other property was made by the accused. Rather, it was an admitted case that the only demand was to arrange Rs 50,000 to meet the legal expenses for applying bail of the husband and her father-in-law, who were in judicial custody.
“Scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal.”
The Court opined that impugned provisions do not warrant judicial interference, because it is well-settled law that courts refrain from intervening in matters of legislative policy or mandate
Prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2023, Justice Rajesh Bindal was serving as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.
The expression “soon before her death” in Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860 must be read as an expression of continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time. The legislature in its wisdom had used the phrase as “soon before” and not “immediately before”.
Top criminal cases on quashing of proceedings, arrest, bail, acquittal, and more.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment, had killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking.”
Kerala High Court said that the marriage under the customary or personal law, which is otherwise valid, has to be treated as valid between parties to that marriage for all practical purposes, unless and until it is challenged by any of the parties to that marriage, and declared void on any valid grounds.