U. Krishnappa vs M. N. Devaraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 4166 Kant

                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

                        AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH


          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1608 OF 2016



BETWEEN:

U. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/O KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 114.
                                      ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     M.N. DEVARAJ,
       S/O. NANEPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       MASHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
       CHINTAMANI TALUK,
       CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.
                           2


2.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     BY CHINTAMANI POLICE,
     REPRESENTED BY
     THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1:
    SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE ADDL.SPP FOR R2)


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL PASED BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA
(SITTING AT CHINTAMANI) IN S.C.NO.74/2013 DATED
18.02.2016     ACQUITTING    THE     RESPONDENT
NO.1/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498(A) AND 304(B) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3
AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND
CONVICT THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A) AND
304(B) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
HEARING THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                  JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the complainant who is the

father of the deceased against the impugned judgment

and order of acquittal dated 18.02.2016 made in SC

No.74/2013 on the file of the II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sitting at Chintamani,

acquitting the accused under the provisions of Sections

498A, 304B, 306 of IPC and read with Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act. But in the operative

portion, the wrong provisions are mentioned.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that PW6 -

Krishnappa who is the resident of Kallahalli Village,

Hosakote Taluk lodged a complaint as per Ex.P3 on

12.08.2012 at about 5.00 p.m., alleging that his second

daughter Munilakshmamma has given in marriage to

one Devaraju - accused - resident of Mastenahalli

Village and their marriage was performed on

24.02.2012 at Doddakunte Anjaneya Swamy Temple of

Kaiwar. At the time of marriage, he has given 42 grams

long chain, 40 grams necklace, 6 grams ring and 12

grams hangings to his daughter Munilakshmamma as

gift and given 25 grams neck chain, 8 grams finger ring

and Rs.1,20,000/- to Devaraju as dowry and marriage

has been performed by the parents of the accused at

their own cost.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that

from the date of marriage, his daughter was residing

with her husband. After five months of her marriage,

the husband (son-in-law and his parents) started

harassing her daughter to bring additional dowry and in

this regard sent his daughter 4 to 5 times to his house

and advised about 20 days prior to the date of incident

and the accused asked the complainant to give amount

to dug a bore well and that he will return the same. At

that time, he borrowed loan and gave to the accused a

sum of Rs.25,000/- and further the accused has dug the

bore well and got the water and he has got the

documents regarding the ornaments given to the

accused Devaraju. It is further case of the prosecution

that on 12.08.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., accused called

him and informed that his daughter Munilakshmamma

at about 7.00 a.m., got set the fire and she was in a

position to die and taking her to the hospital. When he

came to the village of the accused, he enquired with the

neighbours and came to know that his daughter was

died and Devaraju and his family members left his

daughter in the house and ran away, thereby lodged a

complaint to the jurisdictional police as per Ex.P3. The

jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime

No.173/2012 under Section 498A, 304B read with

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

jurisdictional police after investigation, filed charge

sheet against the accused.

4. After the committal of the matter to the

learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions judge

secured the presence of the accused and framed the

charges, explained to the accused in the language

known to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

        5.     In     order     to      prove       the    case         of    the

prosecution,        the     prosecution          examined         in    all   13

witnesses as PWs.1 to P13 and marked documents at

Exs.P1 to P14. After considering the both oral and

documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions

Judge framed three points for consideration.

Considering the both oral and documentary evidence on

record, the learned Sessions Judge has answered Points

No.1 and 2 in 'negative' and Point No.3 in

'affirmative' holding that the prosecution failed to

prove that the parents of the deceased have given 25

grams neck chain, 8 grams finger ring and

Rs.1,20,000/- as dowry. The accused has caused

physical and mental harassment in order to bring

dowry, thereby committed the offence under the

provisions of Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further recorded the

finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused caused physical and

mental harassment in order to bring dowry from the

matrimonial house in addition to the cash and

ornaments given at the time of marriage. Thereby,

Munilakshmamma poured kerosene on herself and got

set the fire, thereby committed an offence under the

provisions of Section 304-B of IPC and thereby the

learned Sessions Judge answered Point No.3 in the

'affirmative' and acquitted the accused for the

aforesaid offence. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties.

7. Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for

the complainant contended with vehemence that the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by

the trial court acquitting the accused is erroneous and

contrary to the material on record, cannot be sustained

and liable to be set aside. He would further contend that

it is the specific case of the complainant - PW6 that his

daughter Munilakshmamma was given married to the

accused and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- cash, gold ring and

long chain and necklace was given to his daughter -

deceased Munilakshmamma at the time of marriage.

The said material fact has not been considered by the

trial court, thereby proceeded to acquit erroneously.

8. He would further contend that after three

months of the marriage, the accused came to the house

of the complainant and demanded Rs.50,000/- to dig a

bore well and accordingly, PW6 - father of the deceased

has borrowed loan a sum of Rs.25,000/- from his

brother-in-law Sri. Anjanappa - PW7 and paid the said

amount to the accused. The said material has not been

considered in a proper perspective. He would further

contend that PW6 - the complainant has stated in his

cross-examination that his daughter was subjected to

ill-treatment since one month, which clearly depicts that

the accused was demanding dowry and giving

harassment after the marriage. The said evidence has

not been considered before passing the acquittal order.

Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of

acquittal cannot be sustained. He would further contend

that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to acquit the

accused mainly on the basis of the presumptions and

assumptions ignoring the fact of payment of dowry by

way of cash and golden ornaments and presumption,

has to be drawn under the provisions of Section 113B of

the Indian Evidence Act as the deceased died within 7

years after the marriage. Therefore, he sought to allow

the appeal.

9. Per contra Sri. Veeranna G. Thigadi, learned

counsel for accused/respondent No.1 while justifying the

impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by

the trial court and sought to dismiss the appeal.

10. Per contra, Shri. Vijayakumar Majage,

learned SPP for respondent No.2/State submits that the

trial court considering both the oral and documentary

evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that it

was only the customary gift, it cannot be considered as

dowry harassment and nothing has been produced

before the court to prove that it was a dowry

harassment, thereby sought to dismiss the appeal.

Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned SPP for respondent

No.2/State fairly submits that the State has not filed

any appeal against the order of acquittal. But he

supported the contentions urged by the learned counsel

for the appellant/complainant and south to allow the

appeal.

11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties, the only point that

would arise for our consideration is:

"Whether the complainant has made out a case

to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of

acquittal passed by the trial court acquitting the

accused under the provision of Sections 498-A, 304-B

and 306 of IPC and read with Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act?"

12. We have given our anxious consideration to

the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the entire material on record

carefully.

13. In order to re-appreciate the entire material

on record, it is relevant to consider the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses and material documents relied

upon:

(a) PW1 - Manjunath - Panchayath

Development Officer issued the House Demand Extract

as per Ex.P2 along with Ex.P1 - letter, supported the

case of the prosecution.

(b) PW2 - Sri. S.L. Krishna Murthy who

registered the case on the basis of the complaint lodged

by PW6 as per Ex.P3, supported the case of prosecution.

(c) PW3 - K. Bhavya who is the own sister of

the deceased and daughter of the complainant also

deposed about demanding dowry, causing harassment to

the deceased and deposed that the accused told that he

intended to marry her as a 2nd wife. She supported the

case of prosecution.

(d) PW4 - Somashekar is an independent

witness who deposed about the demand of dowry and

causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased

and turned hostile.

(e) Sri. K.L. Babu who is the panch witness to

the Inquest mahazar and turned hostile.

(f) PW6 - Krishnappa who is the complainant

and father of the deceased who stated on oath regarding

the complaint averments stated on oath that he has

given Rs.1,20,000/-, neck chain, finger ring to the

accused and long chain, one necklace, finger ring and

hangings to his daughter as customary gifts at the time

of marriage and he was taking care of his daughter.

Thereafter both his daughter and son-in-law came to

him, requested for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and told

that he will return the same. Thereafter PW6 borrowed a

sum of Rs.25,000/- from his brother-in-law PW7 -

Anjanappa and given to him. In the cross-examination,

he has admitted that from the date of marriage till the

accused died, the accused and his family members were

harassing his daughter, but has not lodged any

complaint to the jurisdictional police. He has further

admitted in the cross-examination that he has given

Rs.1,20,000/- cash, neck chain and finger ring to his

son-in-law as varopachara (customary gift) and he has

given gold ornaments to his daughter as gifts.

(g) PW8 - Kaluram and PW10 - Shankar who

deposed about purchase of golden articles by PW7 under

Ex.P9, supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 -

Patalappa was also present at the time of negotiation

before the marriage and he was also present in the

marriage, supported the case of prosecution. PW11 -

Anjineyareddy is the panch witness to the spot mahazar,

supported the case of prosecution.

(h) PW12 - B. Ramesh - Investigating Officer,

who investigated the case and filed charge sheet.

(i) PW13 - Nagaraj who is the evidence to the

Inquest Panchanama-Ex.P8 supported the case of

prosecution.

14. On careful reading of the complaint - Ex.P3,

on 12.08.2013, though according to the complaint, the

accused and his parents harassed, assaulted and

abused the deceased and sent her to her parents' house

4 to 5 times, her father has not lodged any complaint.

He further stated that he has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-

to the accused for digging of bore-well 20 days prior to

the unfortunate incident, but no material produced in

whose presence he has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to

the accused. Neither produced any material to show

that the father of the accused has dug the bore well and

got the water nor receipt to that effect. In the cross-

examination, he has admitted that whatever amount

paid and ornaments given to the accused as customary

gifts as well as to his daughter, he has also admitted in

the cross-examination, he has not lodged any complaint

to the jurisdictional police. Even though the accused

sent his daughter 4 to 5 times to bring the additional

dowry, he has not lodged the complaint. Admittedly, in

the present case, the prosecution has not examined any

neighbours to prove the alleged ill-treatment or

harassment of dowry given to the deceased. PW6 -

complainant has admitted in the cross-examination that

whatever the cash and gold ornaments given to the

accused and his daughter at the time of marriage was

customary gifts and he has admitted that the marriage

was performed by the accused and his parents.

15. The evidence of PWs.3, 6, 7 clearly depicts

that PW6 has given customary gifts to the accused and

his daughter at the time of marriage, which does not

amounts to dowry and the same is admitted by PW6 in

his cross-examination that the gifts given to the

accused and his daughter are customary gifts to the

newly married couple.

16. Under the Provisions of Sections 3(2)(a) and

(b) of the D.P. Act, depicts the presents which are given

at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any

demand having been made in that behalf) and presents

which are given at the time of a marriage to the

bridegroom (without any demand having been made in

that behalf) will not comply to sub section (1) after

commencement of the Act - imprisonment, penalty for

giving or taking dowry. PW6 who has given the cash

and gold ornaments has admitted in the categorical

terms that it was a customary gifts to both bride and

bride grooms i.e., for newly wedded couple given at the

time of marriage, thereby the prosecution has failed to

prove the provision of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

17. In order to prove the harassment under

Section 498-A of IPC, absolutely there is no material

produced by the prosecution about the harassment as

admitted by PW6 in the cross-examination that though

the accused and his parents demanded for dowry and

sent the deceased to her parents' house 4 to 5 times,

the complainant has not lodged any complaint and

admittedly either none of the witnesses have deposed

about the constant harassment or assault on the

deceased by the accused or his parents and no

complaint is lodged to that effect, as admitted by PW6

nor it is evident from any of the neighbours or owner of

the house where deceased and accused were residing to

prove the harassment. There is no material to prove the

physical and mental harassment in order to bring

dowry, to attract Section 498-A of IPC.

18. In order to attract Section 304-B of IPC,

presumption could be raised only on the following five

aspects :

(a) death took place within 7 years one month

from the date of marriage.

     (b)    Such     death    took   place   in   normal

     circumstance.

     (c)    Woman subject to cruelty by husband or

     relatives.

     (d)    Such cruelty, harassment was for or in

connection with any demand of dowry and

(e) Such cruelty, harassment was soon before

her death.

19. In the present case, it could be seen from

Ex.P3 - complaint and evidence of PW6 - father of the

deceased, the death took place within seven years from

the date of marriage by deceased herself poured

kerosene oil on her and set the fire and the deceased

was not subjected to the cruelty or harassment by the

husband or his relatives and such cruelty, harassment

was not for or in connection with any demand of dowry

as alleged by the prosecution and such cruelty or

harassment was not soon before her death.

20. Admittedly, the deceased was not subjected

to any cruelty or harassment. There is no complaint

either by the deceased or by her parents as admitted by

PW6 in the cross-examination. The expression 'soon

before her death' used in the substantive Sections 304B

IPC and 113B of the Evidence Act was considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Lal -vs-

State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2003)8

SCC 80, wherein at paragraph-8 it is held as under:

8. Section 304B IPC which deals with dowry death, reads as follows:

"304B. Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon

before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death', and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub- section, 'dowry' shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life."

The provision has application when death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. In

order to attract application of Section 304B IPC, the essential ingredients are as follows:

(i) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal circumstance.

(ii) Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

(iii) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband.

(iv) Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry.

(v) Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon before her death.

21. The Provisions of Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both

Section 304B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act

were inserted as noted earlier by Dowry Prohibition

(Amendment) Act 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the

increasing menace of dowry deaths. Section 113-B

reads as follows:

"113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.--When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'dowry death' shall have the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Penal Code, 1860."

The necessity for insertion of the two

provisions has been amply analysed by the Law

Commission of India in its 21st Report dated 10-

8-1988 on "Dowry Deaths and Law Reform".

Keeping in view the impediment in the pre-

existing law in securing evidence to prove dowry-

related deaths, the legislature thought it wise to

insert a provision relating to presumption of

dowry death on proof of certain essentials. It is in

this background that presumptive Section 113-B

in the Evidence Act has been inserted. As per the

definition of "dowry death" in Section 304B IPC

and the wording in the presumptive Section 113-B

of the Evidence Act, one of the essential

ingredients, amongst others, in both the

provisions is that the woman concerned must

have been "soon before her death" subjected to

cruelty or harassment "for or in connection with

the demand of dowry". Presumption under

Section 113-B is a presumption of law. On proof

of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes

obligatory on the court to raise a presumption

that the accused caused the dowry death.

22. Though the learned counsel for the

complainant/appellant contended with vehemence that

the evidence of PWs.3, 6 and 7 is consistent with the

demand of dowry, in the cross-examination of PW6 who

is the complainant - father of the deceased in

categorical terms has admitted that whatever cash,

ornaments given to both bride and bride grooms at the

time of marriage was customary gifts, thereby the

provisions of either Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC or

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was not

proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In

the absence of any oral and documentary evidence with

regard to the involvement of the accused, the trial court

is justified in acquitting the accused for the aforesaid

offences made out under Section 498A and 304B of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

23. The material on record clearly depicts that

the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt

the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- and gold ornaments to

the accused as dowry and physical and mental

harassment given to the deceased was dowry

harassment as contemplated under the provision of

Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, thereby the learned Session

Judge considering the entire material on record, has

rightly recorded the finding that the prosecution failed

to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations

against the accused. Paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of the

judgment of the trial court reads as under ;

"Para 27 - There is no evidence and material placed by the prosecution to prove that after the marriage, there was demand of dowry by the accused or even prior to the marriage or as on date of marriage negotiation. The PW 6 and 9 have deposed that they have given amount and gold ornaments to the accused as Varopachara. The said varopachara is not a dowry as same reported in 2011 Crl.reports page 183 KAR as referred on. Under circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused demanded the dowry in connection with the marriage and PW 6 has paid the samed. As already discussed above there was no demand of dowry. He had demanded amount in order to dig the borewell for better cultivation and good yield. In other words it is for the development of agriculture. There fore it is not demand of dowry.

Para 28 - Even there is no specific evidence and sufficient material that the accused demanded and expressed his intention to marry PW 3 Bhavya during the life time of deceased and caused physical and mental harassment to the deceased in this regard.

Para 29 - No doubt the document shows that he has purchased the ornaments as per Ex.P9 in the name of PW 7. PW6 has stated in his complainant Ex.P3 that he has got document for purchase of golden ornaments. These documents shows that golden ornaments purchased in the name of PW 7 Anjinappa, who is the brother in law of PW 6. These documents are not in the name of PW 6 Krishnappa. No doubt PW 7 is the brother-in-law of PW 6, he might have purchased the these ornaments. But it is not the case of prosecution that the entire amount paid by PW 6 to purchase these ornaments. No doubt PW 7 Anjinappa might have assisted to purchase these articles. He ought have get the bills in the name of Pw 6 Krishnappa. Even assuming that these articles purchased by PW 6 through PW 7, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has demanded dowry in connection with and prior to the marriage or at the time of negotiation of the marriage. Under the circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death of deceased there was physical and mental

harassment in connection with demand of dowry and there fore the deceased committed suicide."

24. After re-assessing the oral and documentary

evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion

that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal

passed by the trial court acquitting the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

is sound and reasonable. The scope of appeal filed by

the complainant is very limited unless this court while

considering the material on record finds that the

findings of the learned Sessions judge are perverse. The

Appellate Court has power to review and re-appreciate

the entire evidence on record. This court would be

justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if

there are substantial and compelling reasons and when

the judgment of the trial court is found to be perverse

judgment. This court cannot interfere with the judgment

and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. On the

basis of the evidence on record, this court should not

disturb the finding of the trial court recorded. In the

present case the reasons assigned and conclusion of the

trial court are sound and proper. Our view is fortified

with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Arulvelu and Another vs. State represented

by the Public Prosecutor and another reported in

2009 (10) SCC 206 as held as under ;

"Para 40 - Unquestionably, the Appellate Court has power to review and re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. The appellate court would be justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal only if there are substantial and compelling reasons and when the judgment of the trial court is found to be perverse judgment. Interfering in a routine manner where other view is possible is contrary to the settled legal position crystallized by aforementioned judgments of this Court. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. This fundamental principle must be kept in view while dealing with the judgments of acquittal passed by the trial court."

25. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and

documentary evidence on record and in the light of the

dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, we

find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment

and order of acquittal, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case.

26. For the reasons stated above, the point

raised in this appeal is answered in the 'negative'

holding that the appellant/complainant has not made

out any ground to interfere with the impugned

judgment and order of acquittal of the accused under

the provisions of Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC read

with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in

exercising the power conferred under Section 372 of

Cr.P.C.

27. In view of the above, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal filed by the

complainant/PW6 is hereby dismissed as

devoid of merits.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order of

acquittal dated 18.02.2016 made in SC

No.74/2013 on the file of the II Addl.

             District     and            Sessions              Judge,

             Chikkaballapura,        sitting       at    Chintamani,

acquitting the accused under the provisions

of Sections 498A, 304B, 306 of IPC read

with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act is hereby confirmed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SNC