Press Trust of India , Updated: August 05, 2010 20:04 IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.
A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.
"The evidence of Prosecution Witness-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or ` 25,000 for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC.
"What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.
The bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother-in-law, and Jagdish, brother-in-law, in a dowry death case of newly-married woman Santosh in Rajasthan's Alwar district in March, 8, 1993. It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.
The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death (304B) and 498A (harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).
The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.
While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction.
I think this is a retrogressive decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. What message are they trying to send? That the asking of dowry is a cultured act? Can’t their Lordships see that asking for dowry and giving of dowry, even unasked, spells the ultimate consumerism of sacrosanct marriage? Justifying dowry by saying that it is intended for the future welfare of the daughter etc. is only an excuse to cover up the cheapest of minds. Transforming marriage into commodity trading is what dowry is all about. If dowry has the sanction of the Supreme Court, then clearly it will become a respectable word to be used when formalizing marriages. The Apex Court saying that there is no stink to dowry so long as it does not generate violence is begging the question because if dowry is as sacred as the SC has made out, then wouldn't violence in its name be justified? It may come to pass that the Courts will end up demarcating the quantum of violence that is permissible in demanding the dowry promised. After all, doesn't this report indicate that the Court said that dowry violence is not a crime unless it results in death? Maybe this report is misleading because I do not believe any Court could have said anything like that. Anyway, the issue should be placed before a larger bench and regurgitated.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-conviction-for-demanding-dowry-supreme-court-42298
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.
A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.
"The evidence of Prosecution Witness-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or ` 25,000 for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC.
"What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.
The bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother-in-law, and Jagdish, brother-in-law, in a dowry death case of newly-married woman Santosh in Rajasthan's Alwar district in March, 8, 1993. It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.
The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death (304B) and 498A (harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).
The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.
While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction.
I think this is a retrogressive decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. What message are they trying to send? That the asking of dowry is a cultured act? Can’t their Lordships see that asking for dowry and giving of dowry, even unasked, spells the ultimate consumerism of sacrosanct marriage? Justifying dowry by saying that it is intended for the future welfare of the daughter etc. is only an excuse to cover up the cheapest of minds. Transforming marriage into commodity trading is what dowry is all about. If dowry has the sanction of the Supreme Court, then clearly it will become a respectable word to be used when formalizing marriages. The Apex Court saying that there is no stink to dowry so long as it does not generate violence is begging the question because if dowry is as sacred as the SC has made out, then wouldn't violence in its name be justified? It may come to pass that the Courts will end up demarcating the quantum of violence that is permissible in demanding the dowry promised. After all, doesn't this report indicate that the Court said that dowry violence is not a crime unless it results in death? Maybe this report is misleading because I do not believe any Court could have said anything like that. Anyway, the issue should be placed before a larger bench and regurgitated.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/no-conviction-for-demanding-dowry-supreme-court-42298
No comments:
Post a Comment