‘Dowry pleas have to be viewed with great circumspection’
1 Jan 2014 5:13 AM IST
A bench comprising of Justice T S Thakur and Justice Vikramjit Sen observed this and further said, ‘Courts however, are aware and alive to this abuse of otherwise salutary statutory provision. Therefore, pleas founded on limitation have to be viewed with great circumspection’.
The court was hearing an appeal of a husband who stood charged with offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Four other accused -- his parents, his brother and sister-in-law -- were similarly charged by the prosecution.
The lower court had said that no case worthy of trial had been made out against the latter four persons, and had discharged them. Proceedings against the husband had been ordered to continue by the lower court. The father of the deceased approached the high court challenging the lower court order discharging his deceased daughter’s parents-in-law and borther-in-law and his wife. The husband had also challenged the decision, saying that no case worthy of trial had been disclosed against him either.
The high court came to the conclusion that there was enough material available for reversing the trial court order against three and maintained that there was inadequate material in regard to the sister-in-law.
On the arguments continuously being raised in the apex court vis-à-vis the passage of seven years before the subject marriage ended with the suicide of his wife, the bench said that there can be no gainsaying that no case can possibly be made out under Section 306 read with Section 498-A, IPC after a marriage has crossed the seven years’ period; it is only the statutory presumption that stands removed, thereby also shifting the onerous burden from the shoulders of the accused to that of the prosecution.
The court was hearing an appeal of a husband who stood charged with offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Four other accused -- his parents, his brother and sister-in-law -- were similarly charged by the prosecution.
The lower court had said that no case worthy of trial had been made out against the latter four persons, and had discharged them. Proceedings against the husband had been ordered to continue by the lower court. The father of the deceased approached the high court challenging the lower court order discharging his deceased daughter’s parents-in-law and borther-in-law and his wife. The husband had also challenged the decision, saying that no case worthy of trial had been disclosed against him either.
The high court came to the conclusion that there was enough material available for reversing the trial court order against three and maintained that there was inadequate material in regard to the sister-in-law.
On the arguments continuously being raised in the apex court vis-à-vis the passage of seven years before the subject marriage ended with the suicide of his wife, the bench said that there can be no gainsaying that no case can possibly be made out under Section 306 read with Section 498-A, IPC after a marriage has crossed the seven years’ period; it is only the statutory presumption that stands removed, thereby also shifting the onerous burden from the shoulders of the accused to that of the prosecution.
Next Story
