दहेज हत्या केस में मुकदमे के लिए आरोपी का खून और विवाह का रिश्ता होना चाहिए: SC

दहेज हत्या केस में मुकदमे के लिए आरोपी का खून और विवाह का रिश्ता होना चाहिए: SC

Thursday, July 3, 2014

नई दिल्ली : उच्चतम न्यायालय ने व्यवस्था दी है कि दहेज हत्या के मामले में किसी व्यक्ति पर मुकदमा चलाने के लिये उसे उस समय तक रिश्तेदार नहीं माना जा सकता जब तक पति से उसका खून, विवाह या गोद लिए जाने का रिश्ता नहीं हो।

शीर्ष अदालत ने साथ ही स्पष्ट किया कि उसका तात्पर्य यह नहीं है कि ऐसे व्यक्ति पर आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने जैसे आरोप में मुकदमा नहीं चलाया जा सकता।

न्यायमूर्ति चंद्रमौलि कुमार प्रसाद और न्यायमूर्ति पी सी घोष की खंडपीठ ने कहा कि उन्हें इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 304 (बी) (दहेज हत्या) में पति के रिश्तेदार शब्द का आशय उन व्यक्तियों से है जिनका खून, विवाह या गोद लिए जाने के रिश्ते से संबंधित है।

न्यायालय ने दहेज हत्या के मामले में पंजाब एवं हरियाणा उच्च न्यायालय के फैसले के खिलाफ पंजाब सरकार की अपील पर यह व्यवस्था दी। राज्य सरकार ने इस मामले में एक व्यक्ति को आरोपी के रूप में सम्मन जारी करने का निर्णय निरस्त करने के उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश को चुनौती दी थी।

निचली अदालत ने इस मामले में एक व्यक्ति को आरोपी के रूप में तलब किया था। अदालत का कहना था कि वह मृतक महिला के पति का रिश्तेदार है और इस अपराध में शामिल है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने कहा कि यह व्यक्ति मृतक के पति की रिश्तेदार का भाई है और वह कानून में प्रदत्त पति के रिश्तेदार की परिभाषा के दायरे में नहीं आता है। न्यायालय ने कहा कि धारा 304-बी से यह ध्वनि निकलती है कि जब किसी महिला की विवाह के सात साल के भीतर सामान्य परिस्थितियों से इतर जलने या किसी दूसरी प्रकार की चोटों की वजह से मृत्यु होती है तो यह माना जायेगा कि उसके पति या पति के किसी रिश्तेदार से दहेज की खातिर हत्या का अपराध किया है यदि यह पता चलता है कि मृत्यु से ठीक पहले महिला के प्रति उसके पति या पति के किसी रिश्तेदार ने क्रूरता की है या उसे प्रताड़ित किया है।

शीर्ष अदालत ने उच्च न्यायालय का आदेश सही ठहराते हुये राज्य सरकार की अपील खारिज कर दी। न्यायालय ने कहा कि भारतीय दंड संहिता में ‘रिश्तेदार’ को परिभाषित नहीं किया गया है।

Source-http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/news/india/anti-dowry-law-misused-no-automatic-arrest-such-cases-sc/227040

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

Justice Dhingra aquits Mother in law of dowry death, slamming the trial court and  public prosecutor for callousness. 'Criminal Justice System in India Needs Overhauling'

The Delhi High Court has said the justice delivery system needs overhauling as the poor are not getting timely justice in higher courts which are are kept occupied with cases involving persons with money or power.

"The whole criminal justice system needs overhauling so that the constitutional mandate of equality before law is made meaningful and it should not be the case that higher courts are kept occupied by the persons with money or power, as is the case today," the court said.

The court made the remarks while setting aside the conviction of a poor vegetable vendor who had to spend seven years in jail due to delay in disposing his appeal in the High Court.

The trial court had awarded seven years jail term to the vendor for allegedly killing his wife in 2003 and he filed an appeal in 2004 on which the High Court took six years to pass the verdict.

In the verdict, Justice S N Dhingra found him innocent and acquitted him but he had already spent his jail term.
"In this case, the High Court did not find time to hear the appeals of other two appellants who continued to remain in jail during trial period as well as appeal period for no crime of theirs," the court said adding the High Court should fix a time limit for disposing of such appeals.

"Neither the criminal should be let off by default as the High Court has no time to hear appeals nor should the innocents rot in jail by default," the court said.

The High Court pulled up the trial court for convicting the accused even though there were not sufficient evidence against him and merely on the basis of a statement made by his brother-in-laws.

"The conviction seems to be the result of a callous criminal justice system where neither the defence counsel prepared the case nor the prosecutor discharged his duty in an impartial manner nor did the judge consider it as his duty to see what offence was made out and everyone acted in a mechanical manner," the court said.

The court found that there was no evidence that the accused was harassing his wife for dowry leading to her death."The most disturbing factor is that no evidence, whatsoever, was collected by the police about the real facts. No effort was made by the public prosecutor or by the trial judge to even go through the evidence and consider what charges were made out. Charges seemed to have been framed in a mechanical manner," the court said.

In this case, the accused had married Janki in December, 2000 and she died within five months of her marriage.The court said that in such cases husband and in-laws should come forward to tell what was the real cause of death.

"The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness. I do not know why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the court to the version of the other side by their advocates," the court said.

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?703620

Court to NCT govt: Frame rules to deal with dowry deaths

Court to NCT govt: Frame rules to deal with dowry deaths

A Delhi court on Monday expressed its displeasure over "inaction" on the part of the NCT government in framing proper rules for executive magistrates to follow in case of unnatural death of a woman due to dowry harassment. Additional Sessions Judge R K Gauba also decried a practice followed by the

Delhi police in which they wait for a Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to send a report in order to register an FIR in case of death caused due to dowry demand.

The court sought a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Headquarters on November 23 to apprise it whether any instruction has been sent to all police officers with regard to registration of FIRs in such cases.

It issued the notice while awarding a woman and her two daughters with 10 years rigorous imprisonment for driving her daughter-in-law to commit suicide on December six, 2005 within 10 months of her marriage.

"There seems to be inaction on the part of the state government in framing appropriate rules for purposes of sections 174/ 176 (police to inquire and report on suicide etc and inquiry by magistrate into cause of death respectively)of the CrPC," the court said.

During the trial in the case, the court noted that there was a substantial delay in registration of the FIR in the matter despite information sent to Prasad Nagar police station by Kamla Devi, mother of victim Chanda Kumar, following her suicide. The police, instead, waited for an instruction of the SDM to register the case. The SHO concerned sat over the order of the SDM stating that there was no specific direction to register the FIR even though the nature of offence was cognizable.

The court noted that the SDM, on his part, also did not issue proper instruction to the police under the procedure.

"The manner in which the SDM conducted his proceedings in this case has left much to be desired. His lack of training, instruction and preparedness to discharge responsibilities of this nature has come out vividly in the course of this trial.

"The evidence has also shown that the SDM never cared to even prepare any final report of the inquest. These aspects need to be taken up further with the concerned quarters in the executive branch of the government," the court said.

In its judgement, the court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 each on victim's mother-in-law Premawati and his sisters-in-law Deepa Bala and Lalita after holding them guilty of abetment of suicide and cruelty.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Court-to-NCT-govt-Frame-rules-to-deal-with-dowry-deaths/Article1-626796.aspx

Delhi district court-Three acquitted in dowry death case. Suicide due to Illicit relationship given color of dowry demand and death by Girl’ family

Delhi district court-Three acquitted in dowry death case. Suicide due to Illicit relationship given color of dowry demand and death by Girl’ family

New Delhi, Nov 14 (PTI) A Delhi court has acquitted a man and his parents of the charges of causing death of the former''s wife for dowry, noting that the accused were financially well-off to raise such demands.
Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau absolved Pankaj Raj, his father Surender Kumar and mother Kamlesh of the charges under Section 304 B (dowry death) and 498 A (cruelty) of the IPC.
The court took into account a number of facts like Raj''s earnings, the gifts he had given to his wife Ritu, the places he took her to on their honeymoon, besides the financial condition of Kumar and the victim.
It said that Ritu was maintaining an independent bank account and had even paid Rs 40,000 to her brother for buying a motorbike after her marriage with Raj on December 9, 2005 to conclude that she herself was capable of taking care of her financial requirements.
The court further said the demands for articles like TV and AC do not appear "plausible" as Raj was the only son of his parents and his sister was settled in the USA as professor at Harvard University.
It also said that besides the mother and brother of the deceased, no one else from her family including the father was cited as witness by the prosecution to prove their charges.
"It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the deceased has committed suicide but it cannot be related to any dowry-related harassment by the accused as apparently there is no proximity or link between her death and the alleged misconduct by the accused persons," the court said.
During the trial, the accused tried to point out to the court that the victim could not reconcile with her marriage as she got attached with a boy with whom she was earlier engaged and was even in touch with before committing suicide on April 10, 2006 at her matrimonial home in Janak Puri here within five months of her marriage.
"The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence, especially in view of the glaring contradictions and overwhelming inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses," the court said, acquitting the accused.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4576032

SC acknowledges gross abuse of ANTI DOWRY LAWS - Bombay high court rapped for wrongly convicting man

SC acknowledges gross abuse of ANTI DOWRY LAWS - Bombay high court rapped for wrongly convicting man

New Delhi, Nov 12(PTI) Noting that his wife had committed suicide after her illicit relationship stood exposed, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction imposed on a doctor and his parents by the Bombay High Court, saying it was a clear-cut case of gross abuse of dowry laws.

The apex court minced no words in expressing displeasure at the manner in which the High Court had convicted Dr Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta by erroneously reversing the acquittal order passed by the Sessions Court.

"The High Court dealt with the case very casually, adopting a very superficial approach to the whole matter and brushed aside the allegation of an illicit relationship for which there had been documentary evidence on record," a Bench of Justices P Sathasivam and B  Chauhan observed in their judgement.

The apex court said the manner in which the doctor and his parents were framed by the in-laws revealed the extent to which the anti-dowry laws were being abused in the country."It is a clearcut case of gross abuse of dowry laws.

The High Court did not make any attempt to appreciate the evidence with accuracy and reversed the findings of the trial court which were based on the evidence on record and for which detailed reasons had been assigned," the apex court said.

The court ruling came on an appeal by the doctor, a Mumbai-resident, and his parents. Married in December 1978, Gupta''s wife committed suicide in September 1985 by hanging herself.

Following the suicide, her brother Rajesh lodged a complaint with the police accusing the husband of illtreating his sister for dowry culminating in the suicide.The trial court acquitted the three as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against them.
Referring to her going into depression following the exposure of her illicit relationship with a neighbour and her strained life at home, the trial court concluded that Gupta''s wife "had been suffering from epilepsy, psychosis and depression and had been getting regular treatment for the same."

"Therefore it was not a case of dowry demand or treating her with cruelty," the trial court had held.But the High Court had convicted them, saying the defence had not been able to prove its version.Concurring with the trial court''s view, the apex court said, "The high court committed an error in shifting the burden of proof to the defence".

"In fact, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the failure of the defence to prove its version cannot be ground for conviction.

"We find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants (the man and his parents) on aforesaid counts (of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide)," said the Bench, while acquitting the man and his parents yesterday," the court said.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4570561

Full Text available @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/11/sc-acknoeldges-gross-misuse-of-anti.html

Court acquits man charged with setting his wife on fire

Court acquits man charged with setting his wife on fire

A Delhi court on Monday acquitted a man and his two family members of the charge of burning to death his wife in 2005 stating that the victim had said that she suffered injuries in an accidental fire. "The prosecution seeks to condemn its own witness (the victim) when it argues that the deceased

could not be said to be in a fit condition to record her statement before the SDM concerned," additional sessions judge JR Aryan said.

The court absolved Mahender Singh, husband of victim Lata, his brother Narender and their mother Nirmala Devi of the charge of dowry death and subjecting the woman to cruelty.

It lent credence to the dying declaration of the victim in which she, before succumbing to her injuries, had told the SDM that the fire was accidental and she was not burnt by either by her husband or by the in-laws.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Court-acquits-man-charged-with-setting-his-wife-on-fire/Article1-620912.aspx

Retired cop, family for booked abetting daughter-in-law's suicide

Retired cop, family for booked abetting daughter-in-law's suicide

TNN, Oct 11, 2010, 11.22pm IST

RAJKOT: A retired policeman and two of his family members were booked on Monday for abetting the suicide of his daughter-in-law, who ended her life here on Sunday.

Police said victim Manchhaba Jadeja committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling of her house in Rameshwar Park in Railnagar area. The victim's father in-law Dilubha Jadeja, retired assistant sub-inspector, had informed the city police control room about the incident. The investigation was handed over to Pradyumannagar police station.

Manchhaba's family created a ruckus at the civil hospital when her body was brought for postmortem. Ranjeetsinh Parmar, Manchhaba's brother has alleged in his police complaint against her husband and in-laws that his sister was being physically and mentally tortured for not bringing Rs 50,000 as dowry. This forced her to take the drastic step, he has alleged.

Dilubha, his son Lakhdhirsinh and wife Ansoyaba have been named as accused in the complaint and have been booked on the charge of abetment to suicide, said assistant sub-inspector T J Mishra of Pradyumannagar police station.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/rajkot/Retired-cop-family-for-booked-abetting-daughter-in-laws-suicide/articleshow/6731997.cms#ixzz128VaUfwR

Dowry death case: key witness turns hostile

Dowry death case: key witness turns hostile

New Delhi, Sep 14 (PTI) A Gurgaon-based lawyer, a key witness in an alleged dowry death of a newly-wed woman here, today took a complete U-turn in a court here saying "I do not know anything about this case".

Mahender Singh Chauhan, practising as an advocate in Gurgaon district courts, appeared for testifying in the seven-year-old case following the issuance of bailable warrants by Additional Sessions Judge S C Rajan.

The key witness, who had allegedly recorded his statements to the police and the SDM concerned after victim Sarita committed suicide at her matrimonial home here, was declared hostile by the prosecution.

"I do not recollect that I was informed by the father of the victim (a co-villager) that his daughter was harassed by the accused for not bringing Rs 3.5 lakh cash and a car in dowry," Chauhan said while testifying as 19th prosecution witness in the case.

The witness, however, admitted that the statements, given to the police and the SDM, were signed by him.
However, he fell short of endorsing the statement saying "I don not recollect as to whether it was recorded by the SDM on September 1, 2003."

The court has fixed the matter on September 25 for further cross-examination of the witness.Earlier, the court had issued a bailable warrant against the lawyer after he had failed to appear and testify despite being summoned over 15 times.

The case pertained to alleged dowry death of Sarita Devi who committed suicide after consuming poison at her matrimonial house at Chanakyapuri here on August 31, 2003.Narender Yadav, husband of the victim and his parents, have been booked under various penal provisions dealing with dowry death and subjecting a married woman to cruelty.

The father of the victim alleged that her daughter was being harassed for not bringing a car and Rs 3.5 lakh cash as dowry.The alleged torture led her commit suicide within a year of her marriage.

Cop in dowry case faces court’s wrath

Cop in dowry case faces court’s wrath

Sessions court rules police inspector had falsely implicated a Vile Parle family though he knew they were ‘innocent’; family wants to put past behind them

Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 03:52:58 AM

Madhukar, Nanda and their son Ashish had been arrested after their daughter-in-law Meena committed suicide in 2007

In an alleged dowry death case, a police official has come under the court’s scanner for falsely implicating a family by submitting false evidence. If found guilty, police inspector Pandurang Tangadpalle of Vile Parle police station could face upto three months imprisonment.
“The investigating officer has acted with mala fide intention to book the accused and he fabricated false evidence with the intention that the accused be convicted and sentenced,” a sessions judge observed. He added that the policeman had done so “though he was aware the accused are innocent”.
The court issued a notice under charges of perjury (section 344 of CrPC for misguiding a court by giving false evidence) to Tangadpalle, and acquitted five members of a Vile Parle family of dowry harassment.

“From the conduct of PI Tangadpalle, it is apparent that he was acting as a puppet in the hands of Manohar Verma (the complainant). This is a fit case where the court should take cognisance of the offence of fabricating false evidence,” observed Sessions judge R D Jadhav, while issuing the notice to the officer.

The court observed that Tangadpalle had delayed filing an FIR and had fabricated the worth of valuables the deceased had received during marriage.

Case background
A case of dowry harassment was registered against Ashish Desai, his father Madhukar, mother Nanda and brothers Hemant and Umesh, after Ashish’s wife Meena committed suicide on March 3, 2007.

Based on a complaint by the deceased’s brother Manohar, the police arrested the Desai family. Manohar alleged Meena was harassed mentally and physically for dowry by the Desai family.

But the Desai family argued it had been a love marriage and as Meena’s father was against it, the couple wed in December 2000 only after her father’s demise. The couple had a son who was born three years after the marriage. Defence lawyers argued there had been no demand for dowry.

“The accused did not harass, nor make any demands for money. They never abused, nor beat Meena.” they said. The court while acquitting the family, observed that there was no evidence that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty or made any dowry demands.

Therefore there was no evidence they had caused her death or abetted the suicide. When contacted, Tangadpalle remained unavailable for comment.

We want son to move on 
“There would be quarrels between my son and Meena as they disagreed on certain issues but her death was not caused by dowry harassment. Whatever we have faced — mental, physical and social trauma — is our past.

The most difficult part was the trauma my son and grandson faced. We are consulting a psychologist to help my son finally move on in life. He is still under trauma and suffers from guilt pangs. He just wants to live for his son now,” Madhukar Desai said

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=2&contentid=20090104200901040352587163655859

‘Can’t presume all suicides by women are dowry-related’-Delhi High court

‘Can’t presume all suicides by women are dowry-related’-Delhi High court

Truth losing significance because of ego of litigants, says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, ruling on a case involving the death of a married woman at the house of her in-laws, has said “truth is losing significance because of the ego of the litigants to see that in-laws should be hanged”.

Justice S N Dhingra ruled that it was unfair to presume that a woman, who ends her life within seven years of marriage, must have been subjected to harassment for dowry. “Suicide is a complex phenomenon. One who commits suicide is not alive to disclose what was going on in his or her mind when he or she committed suicide. There is no presumption that every suicide committed by a married woman in her in-laws’ house or at her parents’ house has to be because she was suffering harassment at the hands of her husband or her in-laws,” he said in the ruling on September 1.

Justice Dhingra made these remarks while dismissing a revision petition filed by the father of a woman who had committed suicide at her in-laws’ house in November 1988. The father got a case registered against her husband and in-laws under sections relating to murder, causing death for dowry and cruelty for dowry. In 2003, the trial court acquitted the husband and in-laws of all charges and held there was no evidence to suggest the woman had been tortured for dowry.

The father challenged this in the High Court but Justice Dhingra concurred with the view of the trial court, noting that several letters written by the woman to her father narrated every happening in her life but disclosed no sign of harassment for dowry. Moreover, medical evidence showed nothing to suggest homicide.

Justice Dhingra said every suicide had to be tested on the basis of evidence available on records and the mental conditions of the victim. The court also censured the growing practice among the deceased's family of slapping dowry cases as a matter of ego. The court said that normally the in-laws are convicted on the testimonies of parents of the girl who, in a fit of anger, are not prepared to believe that their daughter could commit suicide for any other reason.

‘No arrest without thorough probe’
Last August, the High Court had put a curb on registration of dowry cases as a “routine affair” and held that no arrest can be made unless there is a thorough investigation and prior approval of the DCP concerned. The court issued these directions to “salvage and save the institution of marriage” after noticing that trivial fights, ego clashes, “heat of the moment” decisions, were largely behind most of the dowry complaints.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cant-presume-all-suicides-by-women-are-dowryrelated/678136/0

U-turn by victim's parents; husband let off in dowry death in New Delhi

This again reinforces the misuse of 304B to fudge data of dowry death and dowry harassment to mislead the legislatures and siphon funds from US handlers in the name of women emancipation and empowerment

A recent judgment by Delhi HC has exposed and the mentality of girls’ parents to implicate husband and all his relatives in the desparate attempt to seek revenge or encash the opportunity to extort monies

the complete judgment is available here

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/del-hc-misuse-of-304-b-dowry-death.html 

U-turn by victim's parents; husband let off in dowry death in New Delhi

Monday, Sep 6, 2010,

A Delhi court has acquitted six members of a family, including the husband of the victim, in a dowry death case, considering the flip-flops of her parents while recording the testimonies during the trial.

"I am astonished to see their (parents of the victim) changed versions. These witnesses have deposed entirely different things in their cross examination by their examination in chief," additional sessions judge SC Rajan of a fast track court said.

The court absolved Sandeep Chopra, the husband of deceased Shefali, and his five family members of the charges under section 304B (dowry death), 498A (subjecting a woman to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC.

Shefali, who married Sandeep in 2006, was found hanging with the ceiling at her matrimonial house at Chitranjan Park area in New Delhi on February 9, 2007.

In the FIR, Anita Bhatia, mother of the victim, had alleged that Shefali's husband used to harass her as one of his friends was not invited to their wedding. They had also demanded dowry, she had alleged.

She also charged the accused first killed her and then hanged her to the ceiling to establish that she committed suicide.

During the trial, Anita and Kuldeep Bhatia, parents of the victim, first testified that she was subjected to cruelty by the accused.

However, when cross-examined by defence lawyers, they took a complete U-turden and denied their own allegations.

The court, while perusing their testimonies, was of the opinion that there was some substance in the allegations but later found out that they were refuted by the witnesses themselves.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_u-turn-by-victim-s-parents-husband-let-off-in-dowry-death-in-new-delhi_1434335

Full text @

http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/09/cross-examination-shatters-498a-304b.html

SC quashes its own judgement in dowry death case

SC quashes its own judgement in dowry death case

New Delhi, Aug 26 (PTI) In a rare departure from convention, the Supreme Court has set aside its own order passed in a dowry death case in 2008 on the ground that the accused husband and mother-in-law were not heard at the time of quashing their remission of sentence in the case.It held that the remission rules of Madhya Pradesh government gave the benefit of remission (reduction in sentence) for the accused as their sentence was only for seven years and not for life imprisonment.A Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and D K Jain set aside the November 11, 2008, judgement of a Bench headed by Justice C K Thakker (since retired) in the review petition filed by the aggrieved mother-in-law Reshma Devi and husband Jolly Singla who were sentenced to seven years RI for the dowry death of the latter's wife Anju Rani. In a review petition which filed after the original appeal is dismissed, the apex court rarely modifies its earlier judgement. In the instant case, the earlier Bench of the apex court had quashed the remission of the two accused on the ground that Madhya Pradesh government's rule did not provide any remission of sentence in serious offences like dowry death case. Aggrieved by the earlier decision, the accused filed a review petition on the ground that they were not made parties in the SLP filed by the deceased's father and that the apex court had erroneously held that they were not entitled to remission for the serious offence of dowry death. Upholding the review petition, the present apex court bench said "there is considerable force in both the contentions. Accused no.2 (mother-in-law) was not a party to the appeal before this court. But while disposing of the appeal, this Court directed that if she had been granted the benefit under the government Order dated 14.8.2002, she also has to surrender to custody till the period of seven years is over. "Obviously as accused no.2 was not a party and as she was not heard, no observation could have been made in the judgment of this Court nor any direction could have been given to her detriment, that too in regard to a matter which was not the subject matter of the appeal," the apex court said. Interpreting the state's remission rules, the present apex court bench further said the convicts were entitled to the benefit of remission as they were sentenced only for seven years. It pointed out that the remission benefits would not have been applicable to them if they were to serve a life sentence.

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/sc-quashes-its-own-judgement-in-dowry-death-case/265362.html

STAFF WRITER 20:49 HRS IST

New Delhi, Aug 26 (PTI) In a rare departure from convention, the Supreme Court has set aside its own order passed in a dowry death case in 2008 on the ground that the accused husband and mother-in-law were not heard at the time of quashing their remission of sentence in the case.
It held that the remission rules of Madhya Pradesh government gave the benefit of remission (reduction in sentence) for the accused as their sentence was only for seven years and not for life imprisonment.
A Bench of Justices R V Raveendran and D K Jain set aside the November 11, 2008, judgement of a Bench headed by Justice C K Thakker (since retired) in the review petition filed by the aggrieved mother-in-law Reshma Devi and husband Jolly Singla who were sentenced to seven years RI for the dowry death of the latter's wife Anju Rani.

 

http://www.ptinews.com/news/904586_SC-quashes-its-own-judgement-in-dowry-death-case

Social evils and the law!

Social evils and the law!

22 Aug, 2010

The Supreme Court’s diktat (?) to the government to take a re-look at the anti-dowry law - Section 498A of Indian Penal Code—on the grounds that it is increasingly being misused by women to lodge false complaints against husbands and their relatives brings to the fore the central dilemma in laws seeking to remedy social evils. How does one achieve the fine balance between meeting desired goals without going overboard so that legitimate rights are not trampled upon? In the context of laws against dowry, and more importantly dowry deaths, how can the state ensure that women who are ill-treated on account of un-fulfilled dowry demands receive the protection they deserve without going to the other extreme and risking its misuse so that innocent parties are denied due protection under the law.

Expressing concern over ‘a large number of complaints that are not bona fide’, the Court observed it is a ‘Herculean task’ to find out the truth in a majority of the complaints and urged the legislature to make suitable changes in the law after taking into account public opinion. Even if one were to take the Court’s statement about exaggerated complaints with a pinch of salt - remember the same apex court (but a different bench) had not long ago held that a husband and his relatives cannot be prosecuted for ‘cruelty’ towards the wife merely because the mother-in-law or other family members had kicked her – the fact is the laws, as they stand today, leave considerable scope for abuse.

The central question, therefore, is how does one reconcile the cardinal principle of our system of common law jurisprudence - ‘better that ten guilty escape than that one innocent suffer’ – without sacrificing the progress that has been made (thanks to such laws) in fighting a social evil like dowry?

To be sure, dowry deaths have not disappeared. On the contrary! According to data complied by the National Crime Records Bureau, 2,276 women committed suicide following dowry disputes in 2006. Even if this number is juxtaposed against increased reporting of such incidents, that’s an average of six dowry-deaths a day! A notorious statistic for a country that claims to be an emerging economic giant!

So while it would be naïve to dismiss the contribution made by Section 498 (A) (cruelty to a woman by her husband/his relatives) and Section 304 B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code, given the rampant misuse of the law it is time to do some serious thinking on the changes required to retain the essence of these laws while reducing the scope for their misuse.

Today, for instance, all that is required to attract section 304-B is that the woman’s death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage, in other-than-normal circumstances. Suicide due to harassment by in-laws for non fulfilment of dowry demands amounts to death under non-natural circumstances. It is not necessary to produce direct evidence.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/mythili-bhusnurmath/Social-evils-and-the-law/articleshow/6389860.cms

No conviction for mere demand of dowry: Supreme Court

No conviction for mere demand of dowry: Supreme Court

http://www.zeenews.com/news646106.html

Thursday, August 05, 2010, 19:32

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.

A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.

"The evidence of Prosecution Witness-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or Rs.25,000/- for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC.

"What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.

The Bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother-in-law, and Jagdish, brother-in-law, in a dowry death case of newly-married woman Santosh in Rajasthan's Alwar district in March, 8, 1993. It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.

The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death(304B) and 498A(harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).

The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.

While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction. "Thus, there was evidence in the case of Amar Singh about his exact conduct which caused harassment to the deceased but there was no such evidence in the case of Jagdish and Gordhani.

The apex court altered the life sentence of Amar Singh from life imprisonment to 10 years.
"A prosecution witness, who merely uses the word 'harassed' or 'tortured', and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the court in cases under Section 498A and 304B IPC," Justice Patnaik writing the judgement observed._

Citing its earlier ruling in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others (2000) case, the apex court said that in cases where accusations of dowry deaths are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Bby mere conjectures and implications, such relatives cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths.

At that time, the apex court had said a tendency has developed for roping in all relatives of in-laws of the deceased wife in a matter of dowry death, which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against real culprits.

PTI

,,,,,,,,,,

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.

A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.

“The evidence of Prosecution Witness—2, PW—4 and PW—5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or Rs.25,000/— for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC.

“What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman,” the Bench said.

The Bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother—in—law, and Jagdish, brother—in—law, in a dowry death case of newly—married woman Santosh in Rajasthan’s Alwar district in March, 8, 1993. It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.

The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death(304B) and 498A(harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).

The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.

While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/article553730.ece

Man, 3 others acquitted of charges of beheading wife

Man, 3 others acquitted of charges of beheading wife

PTI, Aug 2, 2010, 07.15pm IST

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday acquitted a man, his parents and elder brother of charges of beheading and stabbing to death his wife after she had 'failed' to bring sufficient dowry.

"The accused persons are acquitted of the charges as the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt," additional sessions judge S K Sarvaria said.

The court absolved Ashok, husband of the victim, his elder brother Vinod and parents Bigha Ram and Vidya of charges of murder, dowry harassment, destruction of evidence and group liability under the IPC.
The victim Rekha was beheaded and stabbed several times allegedly by Ashok in active connivance of other co-accused on the night January 20, 2005, at her matrimonial home at Sangam Vihar here.

The probe in the sensational killing took many twists and turns as Ashok, who was the complainant in the case, was later arrayed as an accused after the investigation was taken over by the crime branch of Delhi Police following a public outrage over the issue.
Initially, Rajender, a relative of Ashok, was made an accused and police also recorded his statement in which he allegedly confessed his complicity in the offence.

Later, the parents of the victim told the police it was the complainant (Ashok) who along with others killed their daughter as she did not bring sufficient dowry. Consequently, the husband of the victim and others were arrested.

During the arguments, defence counsel M S Khan told the court that the parents of the victim did not apprise the police at the first given opportunity about the allegation that their daughter was being harassed for bringing less dowry.

Moreover, the postmortem report did not support the time of offence as alleged in the chargesheet, he said adding that the accused Rajender, who later became a prosecution witness, also did not support the case.

The statement of Rajender was recorded by police soon after the offence and then he was also produced before a court. However, he later testified that he was unconscious for over two months after being hit by Ashok, the defence counsel said.

The court said though the offence was committed, the prosecution failed to prove that it was Ashok and his relatives who had committed the crime.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Man-3-others-acquitted-of-charges-of-beheading-wife/articleshow/6248467.cms

Husband shows 'letter' to prove wife was genetically suicidal

Husband shows 'letter' to prove wife was genetically suicidal

Mumbai: The in-laws and husband of Nishi Jethwani, who committed suicide by jumping off the 28th floor of her Mulund residence on June 27, have produced a ‘letter’ written by Nishi in her teenage years to prove that she had suicidal tendencies. They are seeking bail on that basis.

The Mulund police had earlier said that she did not leave a suicide note behind.

The letter, which reads more like a note, was allegedly written by Nishi when she was about 15. It was written on October 31, 2002, after her mother committed suicide, the bail application stated.

“The letter reflects the confused, frustrated, highly depressed state of the deceased. A mentally abnormal and imbalanced person alone can make such notes and writings,” the bail application stated. As per medical science, “suicidal tendencies can be seen in families across generations as depression is genetic”, it added. The matter will come up for hearing on June 14.

Nishi’s father had filed a complaint with the Mulund police alleging that her in-laws and husband harassed her. Based on the complaint, the Mulund police had booked husband Jitendra, father-in-law Mulchand, 53, mother-in-law Deepa, 49, and sister-in-law Sapna, 18, under section 498 A (cruelty by in-laws) and 304 B (death caused due to demand of dowry).

The note, accessed by DNA, was possibly written after consultation with an astrologer. It speaks about Nishi’s parents’ marriage date, her father’s star sign and “her sadesatti” getting over in the second week of November 2003. Sadesatti refers to bad phase in a person’s life. “All the views of life change after sadesatti gets over,” the note read.

The note makes declarations like - “I will dominate my husband a lot; I (will) have a lot of money in life, etc”. It also says, “I will have a thought of suicide if I have problems in my married life. My love marriage will not be successful.’’

Taking a cue from the note, the in-laws also said that she was dominating in nature and had predicted way back in 2001 that her marriage won’t be successful. They also said that she aspired to have her own money and independent house in 2001.

The bail application spoke of Nishi’s “painful and disturbed” childhood especially after her mother’s death and her father’s decision to re-marry. The bail application claimed that Nishi’s relationship with her stepmother was not good. She “never got love and affection from her family” and was sent to Panchgani where she finished her schooling and later to Pune where she went to college, it stated.

“Due to such traumatic experiences and imbalanced childhood, it is natural that she (Nishi) became mentally unstable and highly depressed and frustrated,” stated the application.

Sapna said she was a college-going student, and the case would ruin her life.

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_man-shows-letter-to-prove-wife-was-genetically-suicidal_1409018

Court told to decide bail applications on merits

Court told to decide bail applications on merits

An application for anticipatory bail is normally filed at the stage of investigation. It is the informant who is the best person to furnish the material before the court so as to enable it to conclude as to whether advance bail is to be granted or not. It is further to be seen that a victim is a part of criminal justice, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed on Wednesday.

In his order on a petition seeking to set aside an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in April this year and direct the lower court to permit the petitioner to put forth her arguments in petitions seeking anticipatory bail, Justice M.M. Sundresh said a prosecution case was primarily based upon the victim or the person who set the case in motion. After all, the prosecution took up the case of a victim. While a decision of the competent criminal court did not affect society directly, it did so for the victim.

Mr. Justice Sundresh said that in a criminal proceedings which is sought to be quashed the complainant should be heard. A transfer application could also be filed by a victim. “If that is the position, it cannot be said that such a person shall not be allowed to conduct the prosecution along with the Public Prosecutor by supporting the case of the prosecution.”

The issue before the High Court in the case was as to whether a victim was entitled to be heard and take part in a criminal proceedings or not.

The case was that a woman who was married on July 2, 2009, committed suicide. Following a complaint against Samuel Raj, his wife and son for an alleged offence under Sections 304-B (Dowry death) and 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), Mr. Raj filed anticipatory bail. The girl's father sought to intervene in the order to put forth his objections. His application was dismissed even without being numbered by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, holding that such an application was not maintainable. Following this, Mr. Raj withdrew the anticipatory bail plea, filed another application before the High Court and obtained the bail.

The petitioner submitted that even though anticipatory bail had been granted, the lower court's order dismissing the plea to intervene in the anticipatory bail applications was illegal and liable to be set aside. The order would stand in the way of the petitioner in opposing the applications for bail or anticipatory bail filed by the other accused.

Disposing of the petition, Mr. Justice Sundresh said the victim had got every right to take part in the prosecution. A procedural law would be in aid of the justice delivery system. He said if an application is filed in future by other accused in the case either seeking anticipatory bail or bail, the petitioner was at liberty to file intervening applications. The Judge directed the court concerned to number the application and permit the petitioner to intervene and decide the bail or anticipatory bail applications on merits.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article506325.ece

Victims should be allowed to take part in prosecution: HC

Victims should be allowed to take part in prosecution: HC

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Victims-should-be-allowed-to-take-part-in-prosecution-HC/articleshow/6140496.cms

CHENNAI: In an effort to sustain public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system, the Madras high court has ruled that victims too had every right to take part in the prosecution, and that trial courts should not deny them the constitutional right' and the human right'.

Justice M M Sundresh, passing orders on a criminal petition filed by Sathyavani Ponrani on Wednesday, said: "After all it is he (victim) who sets the criminal law in motion and it is he (victim) who is the affected party. This court is of the opinion that an advocate engaged by a victim will have to be permitted to take part in criminal proceedings, thereby performing his role as an advocate representing the victim."

Sathyavani's daughter, married in July 2009, committed suicide a few months later. He lodged a complaint against her in-laws alleging harassment for dowry and cruelty. One of the accused -- Samuel Raj -- sought anticipatory bail in the sessions court in Madurai. When Sathyavani sought to be included in the case as intervener to oppose grant of anticipatory bail, the sessions court dismissed his claim, on the ground that there was prohibition under Section 301 (appearance for public prosecutor) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Sundresh, disapproving of the denial of the right, reiterated the need to ensure the active participation of victims too in bail and other criminal trial proceedings, and said the advocate engaged by the victims should assist the prosecution, prosecutor and the court. "It is the sole prerogative of the public prosecutor to pick, choose and examine a prosecution witness. However, if he fails in the duty, either accidentally or designly, in the opinion of the court, then in such a circumstance, it can permit a victim's lawyer even to examine a witness. Such a power can be exercised by the court for the purpose of conducting a free and fair trial in the interest of justice."

Reiterating that there cannot be any prohibition for a victim to engage a lawyer and permit him to conduct the case by way of assisting the prosecution, Justice Sundresh said, "As the victim seeks to assist the prosecution there cannot be any prejudice since what is sought to be made is only to assist the prosecution and not to replace the prosecution. Moreover, in view of the huge inflow and pendency of cases, at times it may not be possible for a public prosecutor to concentrate fully on a single case."
Defining the term victim,' Justice Sundresh said it could mean not only the victim but anyone who assisted the victim or who sets the criminal law in motion or even a third party with public interest. "In a case where the victim is no more, it cannot be said no application can be filed by anybody. When a victim is not capable of prosecuting a case, then he has to be represented by another person."

Justice Sundresh, noting that a victim is very much a part of a criminal justice, said that it is unfair to disallow a victim to conduct the prosecution along with the public prosecutor when he had the right to be heard in litigations to quash or transfer the proceedings.

Describing the state's constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair investigation and trial as constitutional and fundamental right, the judge said, "such a right cannot be confined only to the accused. It should be available to the victim also, depending upon the facts of the case."

Justice Sundresh, however, made it very clear that courts should not allow any plea contrary to the case of the prosecution and which lacks bonafides. Courts must consider bonafides, legitimacy and genuineness of the victim while allowing his request to assist the prosecution.

In the end, he directed the subordinate courts to permit the petitioner to intervene and oppose the anticipatory bail pleas of the accused, if and when such a petition is filed.

INVITATION FOR PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCING "JAIL BHARO" CAMPAIGN

INVITATION FOR PRESS CONFERENCE

ON 4 JULY 2010 @ 11:30 AM @ NEWS & SERVICES SYNDICATE (NSS), HYDERGUDA  ANNOUNCING "JAIL BHARO" CAMPAIGN

We, the All India Forgotten Women's Association (AIFWA) and All India Men's Welfare Association (AIMWA), are organizing this Press Conference to announce our support to Mr. Ravindra Gangurde, who has called for a "Jail Bharo Andolan" on 6 July 2010, as a sign of protest against arbitrary arrests of ordinary law-abiding citizens under IPC Sections 498A, 304B, Dowry Prohibition Act and related laws.

Given that today, arrest is inevitable for any man facing allegations of abuse or assault, it is imperative that our fathers, brothers and sons are prepared to go to jail along with us even if they committed no crime. "Jail Bharo" campaign is aimed at freeing ordinary law-abiding male citizens and their kin from the fear of jail and the concomitant feelings of humiliation and suffering so that they do not drive themselves into depression, ruin their health or end their own lives.

We request members of the print and electronic media to attend the Press Conference and provide wide coverage of our event.

Thank you.