9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The applicability of section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code to a case where the death alleged to be a dowry death occurred prior to the insertion of section 304-B in the Indian Penal Code. Summary: The case involved the death of the petitioner's daughter, suspected to be unnatural due to torture by her husband and relatives. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under section 498-A read with section 34 I.P.C., seeking trial under section 304-B I.P.C. The Magistrate dismissed the application citing the amendment's prospective nature. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the special leave petition. The Supreme Court deliberated on the applicability of section 304-B to the case, emphasizing its role in eradicating the social evil of dowry. The Court highlighted the legislative measures taken, including the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and subsequent amendments like section 498-A and section 304-B. Section 304-B, introduced in 1986, defines dowry death and prescribes stringent punishment. The Court noted that trying the respondents under section 304-B for an act pre-dating its creation would violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution, protecting against retroactive laws. The Court rejected the argument that section 304-B was merely a rule of evidence, affirming that it created a new substantive offence. The judgment concluded that the respondents could not be tried under section 304-B for an act committed before its enactment. However, if the accusation disclosed a more stringent pre-existing offence, the appellant could raise it for consideration. As no such argument was presented, the appeal was dismissed. Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the inapplicability of section 304-B to the case due to its retrospective nature and the protection provided by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
|
