<?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>2004 (2) TMI 737 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306591</link>
    <description>The statutory presumption for dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies only after the prosecution proves foundational facts: death otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand. The burden to establish these prerequisites remains on the prosecution and cannot shift to the accused. On the evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the marriage date with reliable material, omitted available documentary support, and relied mainly on belated, interested oral testimony. The conviction was therefore unsustainable because the presumption could not be invoked and the offence was not independently proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:19:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 737 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306591</link>
      <description>The statutory presumption for dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies only after the prosecution proves foundational facts: death otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand. The burden to establish these prerequisites remains on the prosecution and cannot shift to the accused. On the evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the marriage date with reliable material, omitted available documentary support, and relied mainly on belated, interested oral testimony. The conviction was therefore unsustainable because the presumption could not be invoked and the offence was not independently proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>