<?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>2010 (5) TMI 955 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306592</link>
    <description>A conviction for dowry death requires proof that the woman died otherwise than in normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that, soon before death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives in connection with a dowry demand. Only then does the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arise. Here, the evidence was limited to bald assertions by two witnesses and did not reliably link any cruelty or harassment to a dowry demand. The record was therefore insufficient to invoke the statutory presumption, and the convictions under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code were held unsustainable, with the accused given the benefit of doubt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:26:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 955 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306592</link>
      <description>A conviction for dowry death requires proof that the woman died otherwise than in normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that, soon before death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives in connection with a dowry demand. Only then does the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arise. Here, the evidence was limited to bald assertions by two witnesses and did not reliably link any cruelty or harassment to a dowry demand. The record was therefore insufficient to invoke the statutory presumption, and the convictions under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code were held unsustainable, with the accused given the benefit of doubt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>