Please add your comments on attached SC judgement "Material evidence required in dowry demand".
In contrast to DP act section 8A:
8-A. BURDEN OF PROOF IN CERTAIN CASES.-Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of any dowry under Sec. 4, or the demanding of dowry under Sec. 4, the burden of proving that he has not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him..
How applicable is this in other courts in false dowry cases.
Appeal (crl.) 222 of 2008
Ran Singh and Anr.
State of Haryana and Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2008
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3089 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
(see attached file for complete order)
The High Court has fallen in grave error while observing
that present appellants "could misappropriate" and "who can
practice cruelty". The conclusions to say the least are
presumptuous. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by a well
reasoned order had held that there was no material to show
that demand for any dowry was made and an attempt was
made to rope in many persons. When the High Court was
interfering with such conclusions arrived at on facts it ought
to have indicated the reasons necessitating such interference.
That has not been done and on the contrary on presumptuous
conclusions the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge
has been set aside.