Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Surinder Nath
Versus
Kiran Bala
Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 5, 1997
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - SECTION 6 - TRANSFER OF DOWRY ARTICLES - SUMMARY: The court held that the accused was guilty under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for failing to transfer dowry articles to the complainant within the specified time. The court found that the complainant had proved that the dowry articles were given to the accused at the time of her marriage, that the accused was in possession of those articles, and that when she demanded them back, the accused had declined to return them.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Kiran Bala, was married to the accused, Sarojnei Saksena, on 5.5.1986. At the time of the marriage, the complainant's father gave dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000/- to the accused. After the marriage, the accused started maltreating the complainant and demanding her salary. The complainant left the matrimonial home and filed for divorce, which was granted on 4.11.1987. Despite several demands, the accused refused to return the dowry articles. The complainant filed a complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had proved that the dowry articles were given to the accused at the time of her marriage, that the accused was in possession of those articles, and that when she demanded them back, the accused had declined to return them. The court also found that the accused had failed to transfer the dowry articles to the complainant within the time specified in Section 6 of the Act.
Issues: Whether the accused was guilty under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 for failing to transfer dowry articles to the complainant within the specified time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused was guilty under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 because the complainant had proved that the dowry articles were given to the accused at the time of her marriage, that the accused was in possession of those articles, and that when she demanded them back, the accused had declined to return them. The court also found that the accused had failed to transfer the dowry articles to the complainant within the time specified in Section 6 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's revision petition and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Accused-petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 4.1.1997, whereby his conviction under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and sentence for six months RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default RI for one month awarded by the Trial Court are affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-complainant Kiran Bala was married to accused-petitioner on 5.5.1986 at Nangal. All that time her father gave dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000/-, the details of which are attached with the complaint. All these articles were entrusted to the accused at the time of marriage. Accused being dissatisfied with the dowry articles, immediately after the marriage started maltreating the complainant-respondent. The complainant was in service in BBMB at Nangal township before her marriage. Accused started demanding her salary that she received even before her marriage. When her woeful story was told to her parents, they paid Rs. 8,000/- to the accused-petitioner. Her previous salary was again demanded on 19.2.1987 by the accused threatening that in case she fails to abide by that demand, she has no place in the matrimonial home. Apprehending danger to her life, she started residing with her parents at Nangal. All attempts for reconciliation failed. Then she filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was granted on 4.11.1987. Despite several demands made by her, accused declined to return the dowry articles. She alongwith her father went to her matrimonial home demanding return of dowry articles, but accused refused to return anything. After obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, Ropar, she filed a complaint under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, which was dismissed on 6.12.1988 as she could not attend the Court because of her indisposition. Thereafter, she filed this complaint against the petitioner.
3. After recording preliminary evidence, accused was summoned. He denied the charge under Section 6 of the Act. Complainant adduced her evidence. Accused also examined three witnesses in his defence.
4. Scanning the evidence minutely and finding the complainants evidence cogent and reliable, the learned Magistrate held the accused-petitioner guilty under Section 6 of the said Act and convicted him as stated above.
5. Accused-petitioner filed an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was also dismissed.
6. Accused-petitioners learned Counsel submitted that no dowry articles worth the name were given to the accused at the time of marriage. Complainant- respondent has filed false complaint against him. Whatever articles were given to him at the time of marriage in dowry, he has already returned. Thus, according to him, the Courts below have wrongly held him guilty under Section 6 of the Act. Respondents learned Counsel supported the judgments of the Courts below and contended that the offence was proved beyond doubt against the accused and hence, he was properly convicted.
7. From the Trial Courts judgment, it is evident that in the cross-examination of the complainant, Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner asked her that list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage and its one copy was handed over to the accused, she answered in affirmative. She was also asked in cross- examination that at one point of time, accused called her as he was to return certain dowry articles to her and wanted her to sign the receipt in token thereof, but as she declined to sign the receipt, he did not return even those articles. In reply to these questions, the complainant stated that as all the dowry articles were not being returned by the accused to her, she insisted that all dowry articles be returned, then only she will sign the receipt, but the accused declined to return all other articles of dowry and refused to return even those articles of dowry, which he was offering to retur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
