2007 Supreme(SC) 16

2007(1) Supreme 21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
G.P. Mathur and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Appasaheb & Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 2005
Decided on 5-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sudhanshu Choudhari and Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sushil Karanjkar and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as demand for dowry and conviction for dowry death on such demand could not be sustained.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 304B—Dowry death—Appellant convicted under—Deceased died as a result of insecticide poisoning—Evidence of mother and father of deceased that when deceased visited her parents she used to narrate ill treatment and beating for bringing money from her parents—Conviction by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court—Appeal—Both witnesses deposed that deceased was receiving ill treatment as a result of “domestic cause” as regards domestic cause they explained that there was a demand for money to meet expenses for mature and other domestic expenses—Evidence did not show that any demand for dowry was made—Essential ingredient of dowry death i.e. demand for dowry was not established—Conviction could not be sustained.

       Held : The main witnesses regarding the alleged demand of money and also harassment and beating to Bhimabai are her father and mother, viz., PW.1 Tukaram and PW.5 Sumanbai. In his examination-in-chief PW.1 has said that whenever his daughter came to her parental home, she used to complain that she was being subjected to harassment by the appellants on account of some “domestic reasons” and further that her husband (appellant no.1) had told her that while coming back from her parental home she should bring Rs. 1,000-1,200/- for expenses and for manure as he had no sufficient money. PW.5 Sumanbai had deposed that Bhimabai was receiving ill-treatment as a result of “domestic cause” and to a specific question put by the Court as to what she meant by “domestic cause” she gave a reply that there was a demand for money for defraying expenses of manure etc. It is important to note that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was recorded on the very next day of the death of Bhimabai, this witness did not state that the cause for ill-treatment was “a demand for money and a consequent beating”. The evidence on record does not indicate that the police had any reason to favour the accused and deliberately omitted to mention about the alleged demand of money while recording the statement of PW.5 Sumanbai under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The evidence shows that the accused come from very humble background and they could not have exerted any kind of influence, financial or otherwise, upon the police so as to manage a statement favourable to them when in the course of investigation the statements of witnesses were being recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Accepting the statements of father and mother on their face value the utmost which can be held is that the appellant No. 1 had asked his wife Bhimabai to bring money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure.(Para 8)

       A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for “dowry” as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.(Para 9)

       (ii) Dowry Prohibition Act—Section 2—Dowry—Giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with marriage of parties—Being penal provision it was to be strictly construed.

       Held : Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 3509) AND Chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 558). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.(Para 9)

       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 386(b)(i)—Appeal against order of conviction and sentence—Power cannot be exercised for purpose of reversing an order of acquittal passed in favour of a party in respect of an offence charged, in dealing with an appeal preferred against conviction in respect of other offence.(Para 10)