MAYA DEVI & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

MAYA DEVI & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Evidence established deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry soon before her unnatural death within seven years of marriage; all ingredients of Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC with presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act were satisfied; conviction justified.

Parties
Appellant Accused Mother in Law: Maya Devi; Appellant Accused Husband: Karamvir; Respondent State: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Conviction and Sentence by Trial Court and High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Dowry Death, Cruelty to Married Woman, Presumption of Dowry Death, Harassment for Dowry
Criminal Law Dowry Death Cruelty to Married Woman Presumption of Dowry Death Harassment for Dowry

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maya Devi

Appellant Accused Mother in Law

Karamvir

Appellant Accused Husband

State of Haryana

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Conviction and Sentence by Trial Court and High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether death of Kavita was a dowry death as defined under Section 304B IPC
  2. 2 Whether cruelty or harassment for dowry was established
  3. 3 Whether presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act applies in this case

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence established deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry soon before her unnatural death within seven years of marriage; all ingredients of Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC with presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act were satisfied; conviction justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC affirmed
  • Sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for Section 304B upheld