IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.L. Achliya, J.
Ramesh Dalpatsa Kalal and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2002
Decided On : 28-04-2017
It is pertinent to note that it is nowhere the case of the prosecution nor the complainant has deposed that amount of Rs. 15,000/- was demanded out of dowry amount and amount of Rs. 7,000/- was paid as a part payment of dowry. In this view, the reasons and findings recorded by the trial Court are not sustainable in law. There is no cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to sustain the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3-Giving or taking dowry.-To constitute an offence under Section 3 of Act, an act as attributed against accused must necessarily amount to an act of giving or taking dowry.
In order to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is necessary that what is alleged to have been given or taken or abetted to be given or taken, must be a dowry as defined by Section 2 of the said Act. Thus, to constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is necessary that an act as attributed against the accused must necessarily amount to an act of giving or taking dowry. It necessarily means that, such giving or taking the property or valuable security must be in consideration of marriage.
V.L. Achliya, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 5th January, 2002 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, District Nandurbar in Sessions Case No.238 of 1998. By the impugned judgment and order, appellants were held guilty of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for three months.
2. In brief, the facts leading to filing the appeal are summarized as under :
(a) Appellants/accused were tried for committing offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 r.w. 34 of IPC and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On conclusion of trial, appellants were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 r.w. 34 of IPC. They were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded sentence as stated above.
(b) On 9.10.1992, the complainant Ashok Kalal (P.W.3) visited Police Station, Shahada and lodged complaint vide Exh.39 alleging therein that engagement of his sister Pramila (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') had taken place on 7.5.1992 with deceased appellant - accused No.1. Before the engagement, talk in respect of settlement of marriage had taken place on 21.4.1992. The meeting was attended by family members from both sides and other relatives. It was decided to give Rs.33,000/- in cash and golden ring of 10 gm as dowry. It was further decided that expenses towards clothes, photographer, video cassette and band would be borne in equal share and amount as agreed will be given at the time of purchasing clothes of marriage. Subsequent thereto, the programme of engagement had taken place on 7.5.1992. One month after the programme of engagement, appellant Nos.2 and 3 called the complainant to their house and told him that they want to admit their son i.e. deceased appellant No.1 for B.Ed. Course and for that purpose they require Rs.15,000/-. They further told him that only after receiving Rs.15,000/-, they will perform marriage of their son. The complainant refused to pay any amount and clearly told them that he will not pay any amount other than the amount of dowry as fixed and he will pay that amount at the time of marriage. After coming to his house, he disclosed his family members and relatives about the amount of Rs.15,000/- asked to be paid by accused Nos.2 and 3 and further told them that due to his refusal, accused Nos.2 and 3 have become annoyed. He further alleged that after some time, accused told him that if he is not in a position to pay Rs.15,000/- , then get their son Ramesh admitted for B.Ed. Course and whatever expenses required for that purpose, will be adjusted at the time of marriage. In order to ensure good future life of his sister, he spent Rs.7,000/- and got accused No.1 admitted for B.Ed. Course through one Nago Budha Patil.
(c) On 14.6.1992, accused No.2 sent post card to him and informed that the marriage between his sister Pramila and accused is not possible. He has mentioned in the letter that he had shown horoscope of both of them to Brahmin at Shirpur and he has told him that if marriage is performed, death of one of them is likely to take place. Thereafter, talks between the members of family of the complainant and accused persons took place and ultimately it was decided to perform the marriage after accused No.1 completes his B.Ed. Course. On 5.10.1992, father of the complainant went to the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 to meet him. But, they abused his father and asked him to step down from the steps of their house and further asked him not to visit their house. They threatened that if he comes back, then they will kick him out and further told that they will not perform the marriage of their son with his daughter. After returning home, father of the complainant narrated the incident. Because of harassment and disrespect given to his father
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.