NDLI: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860:
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death – Prosecution case was that fed up with the constant dowry demands made on her by the respondents (husband and father-in-law), which her family could not satisfy, the victim-deceased committed suicide by immolating herself at her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage – Conviction of respondents for offence under ss.304B, 498A and 306 – On appeal, held: All the four pre-requisites for invoking s.304-B were satisfied, namely, that the death of the victim-deceased took place at her matrimonial home within seven years of her marriage; that the said death took place in abnormal circumstances on account of burning and that too when she was five months pregnant; that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondents soon before her death and such cruelty/harassment was in connection with demand for dowry – Taking into account the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, particularly, the testimony of P.W.-1 (uncle of the deceased), analysis of the trial Court was correct and respondents deserved to be convicted under ss. 304-B and 498-A – However, the findings returned by the High Court that has acquitted the respondents for the offence of abetment to commit suicide under s.306 is not disturbed as the prosecution could not bring any conclusive evidence on record to satisfactorily demonstrate that it was due to the abetment on the part of the respondents that the deceased had committed suicide by immolating herself. Dowry prohibition Act, 1961: s.2 – Dowry – The term ‘dowry’ takes within its ambit any kind of property or valuable security – Demand of money for construction of a house – In the instant case, the trial Court correctly interpreted the demand for money raised by the respondents on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word “dowry” – The submission for the respondents that the deceased was also a party to such a demand as she had on her own asked her mother and maternal uncle to contribute to the construction of the house, must be understood in the correct perspective – It cannot be lost sight of that the respondents had been constantly tormenting the deceased and asking her to approach her family members for money to build a house and it was only on their persistence and insistence that she was compelled to ask them to contribute some amount for constructing a house – High Court fell in an error in drawing an inference that since the deceased had herself joined her husband and father-in-law, and asked her mother or uncle to contribute money to construct a house, such demand cannot be treated as a “dowry demand” – On the contrary, the evidence brought on record was that the deceased was pressurized to make such a request for money to her mother and uncle – It was not a case of complicity but a case of sheer helplessness faced by the deceased in such adverse circumstances – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B, 498-A. Penal Code, 1860: ss.304-B, 498-A – Dowry death– Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat the very intention of the legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote the object sought to be achieved through the legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry demand – In this context the word “Dowry” ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature – When dealing with cases under s.304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in the society and curb the heinous crime of dowry demands, the shift in the approach of the courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated – Any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught, the real object of the provision – Therefore, a push in the right direction is required to accomplish the task of eradicating this evil which has become deeply entrenched in our society – Interpretation of statutes – Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 – s.2.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 30
Petitioner	State Of Madhya Pradesh
Respondent	Jogendra & Anr.
SCR	[2022] 2 S.C.R. 295
Judgement Date	2022-01-11
Case Number	190

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Prahlad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Pappu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Chetu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh Kumar

Tularam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhagirath Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Shiv Pratap Singh Rana Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Asharam and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra & Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Prahlad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Pappu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Chetu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ghanshyam Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh Kumar

Tularam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhagirath Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Shiv Pratap Singh Rana Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Asharam and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jogendra & Anr.