TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds convictions under Indian Penal Code & Dowry Prohibition Act, dismisses appeal</h1> <h3>S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka</h3> S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka - TMI Issues Involved:1. Acquittal by the Trial Court and Conviction by the High Court.2. Allegations of Dowry Demand and Cruelty.3. Contradictions in Witness Statements.4. Defense of Illicit Relationship and Pregnancy.5. Obligation of the Accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.6. Application of Sections 113 and 106 of the Evidence Act.Summary:1. Acquittal by the Trial Court and Conviction by the High Court:The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment convicting the Appellant u/s 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, reversing the Trial Court's acquittal. The High Court sentenced the Appellant to various terms of imprisonment and fines, directing all sentences to run concurrently.2. Allegations of Dowry Demand and Cruelty:The prosecution alleged that the Appellant demanded dowry and subjected Shanthi to cruelty, leading her to commit suicide by self-immolation. The Appellant's quarrel with Shanthi over Rs. 50/- was cited as an incident of cruelty.3. Contradictions in Witness Statements:The Trial Court found material contradictions in witness statements regarding the dowry demand and the timeline of marriage negotiations. The High Court, however, deemed these contradictions immaterial, emphasizing the consistent demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty.4. Defense of Illicit Relationship and Pregnancy:The Appellant claimed Shanthi had an illicit relationship and was pregnant at the time of marriage. The Trial Court accepted this despite medical evidence to the contrary. The High Court rejected this defense, citing the post-mortem report confirming Shanthi was not pregnant.5. Obligation of the Accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure:The Appellant denied all allegations during his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and provided no explanation for the incriminating circumstances. The High Court noted that failure to explain such circumstances could be seen as a missing link in the chain of evidence.6. Application of Sections 113 and 106 of the Evidence Act:The High Court applied Section 113 of the Evidence Act, presuming the Appellant's guilt due to the lack of rebuttal. Additionally, Section 106 was invoked, as the Appellant had special knowledge of the incident but failed to explain Shanthi's death.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding the Trial Court's acquittal perverse and unsupported by evidence. The Appellant's appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
TaxTMI 