HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRL.R.C.No.976 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Khammam, in Crl.A.No.27 of 2005, dated 12.01.2006, whereby the learned Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, imposed against the revision petitioner-A-1 by the learned I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, dated 28.04.2005.
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revision petitioner/A-1 with P.W.1 took place on 25.06.2000. At the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 paid Rs.70,000/- cash, five tulas of gold towards dowry and net cash of Rs.26,000/- for purchasing scooter and after the marriage they led marital life amicably for about five months. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/A-1 along with other accused, who are the family members of the revision petitioner/A-1, started harassing P.W.1 mentally and physically and also demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and an Auto from her parents and drove her out from the matrimonial house. When the matter was placed before local elders, they advised the accused not to harass P.W.1 and then P.W.1 went to her 2 GSD, J Crl.R.C._976_2006 parents' house for delivery and gave birth to a male child on 15.04.2000. After delivery, the accused did not visit the parents' house of P.W.1. A panchayat was held in the presence of local elders and caste elders and on their advice P.W.1 and the revision petitioner/A-1 started living in a rented house. On 26.08.2001, all the accused beat P.W.1 indiscriminately and drove her out from the house, demanding to bring additional dowry and since then P.W.1 was staying with her parents. Hence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No.3 of 2002 was registered under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the accused. The accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 and P7 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court, while acquitting A-2 and A-3 for the offences with which they were charged, found the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of 3 GSD, J Crl.R.C._976_2006 Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. However, the revision petitioner-A1 found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and he was acquitted for the said charges.
In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner-A1, the learned III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Khammam, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-A1 preferred this criminal revision.
Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.
The point that arises for consideration is "Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the revision petitioner/A-1, at the time of marriage with P.W.1, received cash of Rs.70,000/-, five tulas of gold and Rs.26,000/- for purchase of scooter as dowry and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?
In the instant case, the revision petitioner-A1 was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the 4 GSD, J Crl.R.C._976_2006 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner/A-1 was married to P.W.1 on 25.06.2000 and P.W.1 lived with him for some time at her in-laws' house. It is also apparent from the record that at the time of lodging the F.I.R., the P.W.1 was staying at the house of her parents and out of their wedlock, a male child was born. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which reads as under:-
"3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: --
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--
(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;
(b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act.5
GSD, J Crl.R.C._976_2006 Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given."
Certainly, Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act attracts only in cases of giving or taking of the dowry. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who have categorically stated that at the time of marriage cash of Rs.70,000/-, five tulas of gold and cash of Rs.26,000/- for purchasing scooter were given to the accused and Ex.P3-carbon copy of list of Jahez Articles, which contains the signature of the revision petitioner/A-1, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner/A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Proviso (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would show that a list has to be maintained with regard to the presents given at the time of marriage in accordance with the rules made under the Act and that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given. 6
GSD, J Crl.R.C._976_2006 In the instant case, no where it is stated by P.Ws.1 to 3 that on the demand made by the revision petitioner/A-1 such presents have been given to him. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the parents of P.W.1 have no capacity to pay such presents at the time of marriage and that there is no evidence in this regard. Close analysis of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly reveals that the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not proved by the prosecution.
Finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court to constitute the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Courts below imposed a punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to the revision petitioner/A-1 while acquitting him for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/A-1 under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained and as such it is liable to be set aside.
The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/A-1 by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence 7 GSD, J Crl.R.C._976_2006 punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner/A-1 is acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioner/A-1 shall be refunded to him.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI 28-12-2021 Gsn