<?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 (7) TMI 1409 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303603</link>
    <description>Where evidence showed an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demand soon before death, the SC applied the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and upheld convictions for dowry death and allied offences. Testimony from the deceased&#039;s father and brother, supported by surrounding circumstances, was treated as credible, while the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption. Omissions in the FIR and unproved contradictions in police statements were held insufficient to discredit the prosecution case. The conviction was sustained, but the custodial sentence was reduced within the permissible range.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2022 09:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=686638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1409 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303603</link>
      <description>Where evidence showed an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demand soon before death, the SC applied the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and upheld convictions for dowry death and allied offences. Testimony from the deceased&#039;s father and brother, supported by surrounding circumstances, was treated as credible, while the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption. Omissions in the FIR and unproved contradictions in police statements were held insufficient to discredit the prosecution case. The conviction was sustained, but the custodial sentence was reduced within the permissible range.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>