<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (1) TMI 1467 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298563</link>
    <description>For a conviction for dowry death, the prosecution must first prove that the woman died in abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demand soon before death, so that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can arise. The expression &quot;shown&quot; in Section 304B requires proof of these foundational facts, though not in a manner that defeats the statutory object. On the evidence discussed, inconsistencies among key witnesses meant those foundational facts were not established even on a preponderance standard, and the convictions under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2022 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1467 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298563</link>
      <description>For a conviction for dowry death, the prosecution must first prove that the woman died in abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demand soon before death, so that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can arise. The expression &quot;shown&quot; in Section 304B requires proof of these foundational facts, though not in a manner that defeats the statutory object. On the evidence discussed, inconsistencies among key witnesses meant those foundational facts were not established even on a preponderance standard, and the convictions under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>