(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
S.C.No.229/2016 dated 19.01.2021 on the file of the Prl.
ix) The Chief Administrative Officer of this Court is
directed to send the certified copy of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence to the District
Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, in compliance of
Section 365 of Cr.P.C. and also DLSA, Bidar.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3325
HC-KAR
x) The Chief Administrative Officer of this Court is
directed to furnish free copy of the judgment of conviction
and order on sentence to the accused no.1 to 3
forthwith."
2. Appellant No.2 is the father-in-law and Appellant No.3 is
the mother-in-law of the victim. Appellant No.1 being the
husband, has died during pendency of the appeal. Therefore,
appeal against appellant No.1 stood abated. Appellant No.2
had the benefit of anticipatory bail before the Trial Court and
Appellant No.3 was in custody for a period of 42 days.
3. The health condition of appellant No.2 is noticed by this
Court who is present before the Court. He is suffering with
paralysis and is unable to move on his own. He needs atleast
one attendant even to look after his day to day activities.
4. Appellant No.3 being the wife of appellant No.2 is aged
about 69 years as on date. Her health condition is also fragile.
5. After due trial, accused have been convicted as stated
supra. Conviction is recorded by the learned Trial Judge for the
offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3325
HC-KAR
6. State, for the reasons best known to it, did not challenge
the validity of the judgment whereby all the accused persons
have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections
498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Even though learned counsel for the appellants addressed
the arguments on the question of validity of conviction of the
appellant Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section
3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this Court having noticed that
the ingredients to attract the offence under the said provision
have been established by the prosecution by giving cogent
evidence on record. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, needs
to be maintained.
8. Further, State having not challenged the Order of
acquittal for remaining offences, the judgment has become
final.
9. The very fact that the learned Trial Judge has acquitted
the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498A
and 304B of the Indian Penal Code itself shows that the learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3325
HC-KAR
Trial Judge has rightly appreciated the material evidence on
record in the impugned judgment.
10. For conviction of the appellants under Section 3 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, learned Trial Judge has taken into
consideration the fact that a gold ring was given at the time of
marriage. Further, there was a demand to replace the gold
ring alleging that the gold ring that was given at the time of
marriage was not of gold and it was a duplicate ring.
Therefore, same was sought to be replaced by original golden
ring.
11. Learned Trial Judge recorded a find that Accused persons,
on coming to know that the gold ring given at the time of
marriage was fake, returned the said gold ring to the parents of
the deceased and demanded an original gold ring and
therefore, passed an order of conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
12. Even after re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act needs to be maintained.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3325
HC-KAR
13. Having said thus, taking note of the fact that appellant
No.3 is an old lady aged about 69 years as on date, if the
custody period already undergone is treated as period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of
Rs.15,000/-, and further taking note of the health condition of
appellant No.2 who has suffered paralysis and is unable walk
without the assistance of an attendant, if he is ordered to
undergo imprisonment for a day till rising of the Court and
directed to pay enhanced fine in sum of Rs.15,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, ends of justice would be met.
14. Accordingly, for the foregoing discussion, the following:
ORDER
(a) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
(b) Appeal against appellant No.1 is dismissed as
abated.
(c) While maintaining the conviction of appellant
Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition of Act,
appellant No.2 is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for the day till rising of the
Court and insofar as appellant No.3 is
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3325
HC-KAR
concerned, custody period already undergone
by her is treated as the period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount
in a sum of Rs.15,000/- each i.e.,
Rs.15,000/- already imposed + Rs.15,000/-
enhanced by this Court, in all Rs.30,000/-
each).
(d) Time is granted till 30.07.2025 to pay the
enhanced fine amount.
(e) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount, the
imprisonment ordered by the Trial Judge
stands restored automatically.
(f) Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with copy of this judgment for issue
of modified conviction warrant.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm paragraphs 1 to 14
RSP-operative portion
CT:PK
