Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Criminal Probe Can't Continue Against Unknowns Sans Prima Facie Offence: Bombay HC Quashes CBI FIR
06 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadikari Bids Empathetic Farewell to Kerala High Court
06 Mar 2026
Compensation U/S 28A LA Act Not Restricted to Foundational Award: Bombay High Court
06 Mar 2026
Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Sri Lankan Judge's Right to be Forgotten Plea for Removing Alleged Defamatory Online Content
06 Mar 2026
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
06 Mar 2026
Shrivastava Highlights Bench-Bar Partnership in Farewell Speech
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Directs Urgent Monsoon Prep for Flood-Prone Kochi
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Salma Khatoon @ Salina Bibi W/o Late Sahid Mian – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, learned Addl. P.P.appearing for the State.
2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2006 and 01.07.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.237 of 2000 (44 of 2005) arising out of Narayanpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2000 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.57 of 2000) whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. and R.I. f
To secure conviction under Section 304(B) and 498(A) IPC, specific overt acts of cruelty must be established against the accused; mere familial relations are insufficient.
The conviction for dowry death under Section 304(B) upheld for the husband based on stronger evidence, while the in-laws were acquitted due to insufficient evidence against them.
To establish dowry death under IPC, there must be proof of immediate cruelty or harassment preceding death; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death to sustain a conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the connection between the death of the woman and dowry demands to secure a conviction under Section 304(B) IPC; absence of evidence leads to acquittal.
Dowry death – Mere death of deceased being unnatural in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage will not be sufficient to convict accused under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.
Prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304(B) IPC for conviction; failure to prove demand for dowry soon before death results in acquittal.
The prosecution must establish all ingredients of Section 304B IPC, including demand for dowry soon before death, to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that to convict an accused under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connecti....
(1) In order to presume dowry death, it is a condition precedent that there must be unimpeachable evidence in relation to dowry demand.
(2) Cruelty and dowry death – Something more than mere suspi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article