New Delhi: The Supreme Court said that the word “dowry” must be given a broader interpretation to enter any request that is done in a woman whether regarding the valuable property or security of everything and states that the demand for money to build a house comes in ambit dowry .
Judge NV Ramana, because Bopanna and Hima Kohli said that the interpretation of the provision of laws that will defeat legislative intentions must be shunned for the sake of interpretation that will promote the object intended by law to revoke social crimes such as dowry requests.
“In this context the word” dowry “must consider expansive meaning to include any request that is done in a woman, whether with respect to the valuable property or security of everything.
When dealing with cases under section 304-b.
IPC, The provisions that are promulgated to act as a deterrent in the community and curb crimes of dowry demands, shifts in the court approach must be close to liberals, from limited to widest.
Every rigid meaning will tend to bring in vain, real objects of the provisions.
Therefore, The encouragement in the right direction is needed to complete the task of eradicating this crime which has become very rooted in our society, “Kohli’s justice who wrote the verdict for the bench, said.
The court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict that has released the husband and father-in-law because of a dowry death in the field that the dead person has asked his family members to contribute money to build houses that cannot be treated as houses that cannot be treated as a dowry request.
The top yesterday said that the demand made by the deceased himself must be seen and understood in the right perspective when he was tortured to be money from his family.
It was said that the court order of the trial punished them both for the true death of Mahar.
In this case the deceased, who was five months pregnant, raised himself to death in his wedding house.
“We argue that the trial court has interpreted the request correctly the request of the money submitted by respondents about the deceased for the construction of houses as falling in the definition of Mahar said.
It will not be lost that the respondent has disappeared to torture the deceased and ask him to approach his family members to get Money to build a house and it was only at their persistence and insistence that he was forced to ask them to contribute a number of houses, “he said.
The court said the evidence brought on notes showed that the late pressurized to make such money requests to his mother and uncle.
“It was not a case of involvement but the case of helplessness faced by the deceased was in such adverse circumstances,” said the court while punishing her husband and father under Section 304-B and part 498-A IPC and given seven years of hard prison, which It is minimum sentence prescribed for violations under the 304-B IPC section.
“The situation above if we look together, it can hardly reduce respondent’s violations or take a case of PurView Section 304-B IPC, when all four prerequisites for requesting these provisions are satisfactory, namely, namely the death of Geeta Bai occurred in her wedding house in seven The year of marriage; that the death occurred in abnormal condition because it was burned and it was also when he was five months pregnant; that he experienced a cruelty and abuse by respondents immediately before his death and cruelty / such cruelty / abuse in connection with demand for dowry, “said the court.
Demanding money for home construction is dowry: SC
