Allahabad HC quashes man's plea challenging order in 'live-in' partner's dowry death case
Prayagraj (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has observed that for an offence of dowry demand or in case of dowry death, it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and the accused man were "residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time".
Justice Raj Beer Singh made the observation while dismissing a petition challenging a Prayagraj sessions court order that rejected an applicant's plea for discharge in a dowry death case. The petitioner was allegedly in a live-in relationship with the deceased woman.
The petition submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law, and therefore liable to be set aside.
The applicant's counsel claimed that the deceased woman was married to one Rohit Yadav and that there is no credible evidence that she obtained divorce from him.
The woman later entered a live-in relationship with the accused, and they did not get married, the plea claimed.
In view of these facts, the counsel said, it cannot be said the deceased was legally married to the applicant, and therefore no prima facie case under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be made out.
However, the additional government advocate opposed the application, saying the FIR mentioned that after marriage to Rohit Yadav, the woman was divorced by him. She later married the applicant in court and there are allegations that the deceased was harassed by the accused on account of dowry.
Dismissing the plea, the high court bench said, "In order to attract provisions of Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC, it is sufficient to show that the victim woman and the accused man were residing as husband and wife at the relevant point of time."
"In the instant case, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the deceased didn't fall within the ambit of a legally-wedded wife, there is ample evidence on record that the applicant and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife at the relevant point of time."
The government counsel said the victim woman committed suicide on the premises of the accused.
Whether the marriage between the deceased and the applicant was lawful is a question of fact that can only be examined during trial, the advocate added.
"In view of the aforesaid facts, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that provisions under Section 304 of the IPC are not attracted has no force," the high court noted.
"The perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court considered all relevant facts of the matter and the application filed by the applicant for discharge was rejected by a reasoned order," it added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Speaker Khader dismisses BJP's charges of 'delay' in swearing-in of Jeevaraj as MLA
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Assembly Speaker U T Khader on Wednesday rejected opposition BJP's allegations of delaying the swearing-in of D N Jeevaraj as MLA, asserting that the process was being handled strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions and rules.
BJP candidate Jeevaraj, who had lost the 2023 Sringeri Assembly election to Congress leader T D Raje Gowda, was declared elected late Sunday night after reverification and recounting of postal ballots in compliance with a High Court order.
The recount reduced 255 votes from Gowda's tally, overturning his earlier victory margin of 201 votes and reversing the result.
The recount followed an election petition filed by Jeevaraj.
Addressing reporters, Khader maintained that there was no delay in administering the oath to Jeevaraj, who was declared elected from the Sringeri Assembly constituency after a High Court-ordered recount of postal ballots.
“Where have we delayed? The application was submitted at 11 am. If an application is given in the morning and by evening someone says it’s delayed — how is that a delay?” he said, dismissing the allegations.
The Speaker said the matter involved 'technical issues' that required examination before fixing a date for oath-taking.
“When such a matter comes, we also need to examine it and take a decision as per rules. If an application is given in the morning, at least 24 hours must be given,” he said.
Khader stressed that his role was bound by the Constitution and not influenced by political considerations.
“When an elected MLA asks for time, we must give it under the Constitution and law. Can we refuse? No, we have to give it,” he said, rejecting suggestions that he was acting under party pressure.
He also underlined the need for trust in democratic institutions amid the controversy.
“A democracy and parliamentary system must function on trust. Without that, how can democracy be strengthened? Trust is essential,” he said, cautioning against creating suspicion around constitutional positions.
On claims that the delay was linked to the ongoing political and legal dispute over the recount, Khader said the issue did not fall within his purview.
“My responsibility is to act as per the Constitution and rules. I will ensure that whatever is due to them is done as soon as possible,” the Speaker explained.
He said he had already communicated his position when contacted and would formally inform the concerned parties. “There is no delay, nor any intention to delay. I will discharge my duties as per the Constitution,” he said.
Khader also pointed to possible legal complications in hastily administering the oath.
“If I give the oath to one person and tomorrow the court declares someone else the winner, what happens then? Will it automatically cancel? Will confusion arise?” he asked, indicating the need for due diligence.
On concerns that Jeevaraj had lost over two years of tenure, the Speaker said representation was linked to that constituency rather than an individual.
“Whoever becomes the MLA represents the constituency. Benefits are not given to an individual,” he said, adding that issues of alleged irregularities should be examined by the Election Commission.
The remarks come after the Leader of Opposition BJP in the Karnataka Assembly, R Ashoka on Wednesday accused the Speaker of 'deliberately' delaying the oath and approached Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot seeking intervention, even suggesting that the Governor administer the oath if required.
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah termed the process 'Vote Dacoity' by Jeevaraj and said an FIR has been registered against the newly elected Sringeri MLA.
Defending the recount process, Jeevaraj denied allegations of tampering, while the High Court has stayed an FIR filed against him in connection with the postal ballot issue.
