2022 Supreme(SC) 22

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of M.P at Gwalior)
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Jogendra and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2012
Decided On : 11-01-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Demand for money for construction of house falls within definition of dowry.
(2) When dealing with cases under Section 304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in society and curb heinous crime of dowry demands, shift in approach of courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304-B and 306 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2 – Dowry death – Abetment of suicide – Most fundamental constituent for attracting provisions of Section 304-B IPC is that death of woman must be a dowry death – High Court fell into an error by holding that demand of money for construction of a house cannot be treated as a dowry demand – Trial Court has correctly interpreted demand for money raised by respondents on deceased for construction of a house as falling within definition of word “dowry” – It cannot be lost sight of that respondents had been constantly tormenting 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 – Court must be sensitive to social milieu from which parties hail – Fact that marriage of deceased and respondent No.1 was conducted in a community marriage organization where some couples would have tied knot goes to show that parties were financially not so well off – Death had occurred on account of deceased dowsing kerosene oil and setting herself on fire – Evidence brought on record amply demonstrates that harassment of deceased for money had commenced within a few months of her marriage and had continued thereafter on several occasions – Respondents deserved to be convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court in respect of both respondents under Section 304-B and Section 498-A IPC, restored – However, sentence imposed on them by trial Court of RI for life is reduced to RI for seven years, which is minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 304-B IPC. (Paras 9, 12, 14, 18, 20 and 21)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Liberal Construction – Liberal construction should be put up on written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect, intention of parties – Interpretation of a provision of law that will defeat very intention of legislature must be shunned in favour of an interpretation that will promote object sought to be achieved through legislation meant to uproot a social evil like dowry demand – In this context 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 Section 304-B IPC, a provision legislated to act as a deterrent in society and curb heinous crime of dowry demands, shift in approach of courts ought to be from strict to liberal, from constricted to dilated – Any rigid meaning would tend to bring to naught, real object of provision – A push in right direction is required to accomplish task of eradicating this evil which has become deeply entrenched in our society. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10th September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17th December, 2003 imposed by Additional Sessions Judge on the original accused No.1, Jogendra – husband of the deceased, Geeta Bai [respondent No. 1 herein] and the original accused No.2, Badri Prasad – father-in-law of deceased[respondent No. 2 herein] has been set aside under Sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, while maintaining order of conviction imposed on the original accused no. 1 – Jogendra under Section 498-A IPC and reducing the sentence from three years to period already undergone by him, but setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused No. 2, Badri Prasad even under

Section 498-A IPC.

Findings of Court:

Though the High Court found the testimony of P.W.-1 [maternal uncle of the deceased] to be trustworthy and consistent and no credible evidence could be produced by the respondents to demolish the prosecution version, surprisingly, their conviction under Section 304-B IPC has been set aside and furthermore, respondent No. 2 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

Result : Appeal allowed.