Supreme Court has given a faulty judgment which is legally and technically wrong

The Supreme Court is Wrong. Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not grant immunity to the accused, it grants immunity to the complainant. In this case where the woman is accused is not entitled to the relief that the Supreme Court has granted to her. Justice Dhingra was right in his observation. Supreme Court needs to be more responsible in delivering verdicts rather than going by emotions.
Hence, in this case the immunity must have been granted to the husband and his family. DP Act clearly says both Dowry Giving and Taking are crime. When the woman is admitting her crime, pardoning the same with a wrong and gender-biased interpretation is nothing but a sheer display of lack of knowledge of law on part of the Supreme Court. Its time the judiciary gets trained in law.
Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Supreme Court has given a faulty judgment which is legally and technically wrong

  1. Bhupinder Singh Patel vs CBI (2008 CriLJ 4396)

    “It may be noted that whenever a person lodges a complaint with the police that he has been asked to give bribe which he is not willing to give, his statement is recorded. Upon the registration of FIR is investigation is taken up and if so required, the trap is laid. It is during this investigation and the trial, the complainant is required to make such statement and on such statements, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence of abetment under the Act. Section 24 of the Act, does not envisage blanket protection to the bribe-giver, under all circumstances. The immunity for the bribe-giver is provided where he is unwilling to pay illegal gratification to a public servant and approaches the police agency, in order to get the public servant trapped while accepting the bribe.”

  2. Sashi Bhusan Kar. Vs State of Orrisa (1985 (1) OLR 504)

    “A bribe-giver must be condemned as much as a bribe-taker., Givers of bribe-amounts to public servants are undoubtedly accomplices to the crime. In this connection, reference may be made to the observation of the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0053/1954 : Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another v. State of Vindh Pradesh and by this Court in MANU/OR/0150/1984: B.K. kutty v. State.”

    Court In Its Own Motion Vs State & Ors. (2009 CriLJ 277)

    “But I have held in several cases already that there are two kinds of traps ‘a legitimate trap’, where an offence has already been born and is in course, and an illegitimate trap’, where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is offered to see whether an offence would be committed, succumbing to it, or not. Thus, where the bribe has already been demanded from a man, and the man goes out offering to bring the money but goes to the police and the magistrate and brings them to witness the payment, it will be ‘a legitimate trap’, wholly laudable and admirable, and adopted in every civilized country without the least criticism by any honest man. But where a man has not demanded a bribe, and he is only suspected to be in the habit of taking bribes and he is tempted with a bribe, just to see whether he would accept it or not and to trap him, if he accepts it will be ‘an illegitimate trap’ and, unless authorized by an Act of Parliament, it will be an offence on the part of the persons taking part in the trap who will all be ‘accomplices’ whose evidence will have to be corroborated by untainted evidence to a smaller or larger extent as the case may be before a conviction can be had under a rule of Court which has ripened almost into a rule of law”

    “In Bhupendra Singh Patel v. State (CBI), Cri. M.C. No. 59/2004 decided on 10th November, 2004 a first information report was lodged against a journalist who conducted a sting operation in which he bribed the Additional Private Secretary of a Union Minister of State with the avowed object of exposing corruption at the highest level in government. While declining to quash the first information report, this Court held that immunity is given to a bribe- giver where he is unwilling to pay illegal gratification to a public servant and approaches the police to get the public servant trapped while accepting a bribe. However, in the case under review, the accused bribed the public servant on three occasions and in not a single instance did he report the matter to the police in advance, otherwise they could have laid a legally admissible trap and apprehended the bribe takers. To make matters worse, the accused did not inform the police even after the transaction was complete.”

  3. It is true that Sec 7 gives immunity to the complainant and SC is right in its observation. But Sec 7 gives immunity to the complainant ONLY. who is the complainant in 99% cases, the wife, and in 99% cases the allegation of Dowry giving is by the father-in-law that he gave the dowry to the groom or groom’s father & mother at such place and time.The father in law does not have any immunity here. The Supreme court is wrong in considering all the relatives of the wife as the complainant and giving immunity to all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s