The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K Patnaik, J.— This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11-9-2006 of the Karnataka High Court in State v. Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar (2006) 6 Kant LJ 364.
2. The facts very briefly are: the appellant was married to Rajbee on 21-4-1997. She committed suicide on 29-3-1998. A case was registered and investigated by the Police Inspector (Anti-Dowry Cell) and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the mother of the appellant for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC as well as Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case was that at the time of marriage of the appellant with Rajbee (the deceased), Rs 1000 cash and one tola of gold was given to the appellant and thereafter the appellant harassed the deceased further for more dowry of Rs 10,000 and the deceased informed about this harassment to her mother. Thereafter, the mother of the deceased was able to give Rs 2000 towards the demand but was unable to pay the balance amount of Rs 8000. The deceased came along with the appellant to her mother's place and when the appellant was told that her family does not have any capacity to meet the balance demand of Rs 8000, the deceased went back to her matrimonial house weeping and saying that her life would not be safe. She came back again to her mother's place during the Holi festival and complained of harassment and once again asked for the balance amount of Rs 8000, but the same was not paid to her by her mother and within fifteen days of this incident, the deceased committed suicide.
4. At the trial, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW 2 and two of her uncles were examined as PW 3 and PW 4 and besides them four other witnesses were examined as PWs 5, 7, 10 and 12, who all deposed about the demand of Rs 1000 cash and one tola of gold as well as demand of Rs 10,000 and about the fact that Rs 1000 cash and one tola of gold were actually given to the appellant at the time of marriage and also about the fact that out of the demand of Rs 10,000 made after the marriage, Rs 2000 was paid but the balance of Rs 8000 could not be paid because of which the deceased was harassed and she committed suicide. Nonetheless, the trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges by its judgment dated 2-12-1999.
5. Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2000 before the High Court and by the impugned judgment (2006) 6 Kant LJ 364, the High Court reversed the order of the trial court only qua the appellant husband and convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 304-B and in view of the sentence awarded under Section 304-B, the High Court did not award any separate sentence for the offence under Section 498-A. In respect of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the High Court sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the three offences.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no demand for dowry by the appellant. He submitted that Rs 1000 and one tola of gold was given by PW 2, the mother of the deceased to the appellant as “varopachara” as has been found by the trial court on the basis of the evidence of PW 3, the uncle of the deceased. Regarding the demand of Rs 10,000, he submitted that the evidence of PW 3, the uncle of the deceased, is clear that after six months of marriage, the deceased demanded Rs 10,000 from PW 2, her mother, stating that there was a society loan of the appellant. He submitted that the demand of Rs 10,000 was, therefore, not towards dowry but was for repayment of a society loan. He cited a decision of this Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721 in which it has been held that some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure cannot be treated as dowry and, therefore, the provisions of Section 304-B IPC which applies to only the demand made in connection with dowry could not be attracted. He finally submitted that although all the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was harassment to the deceased in connection with the demand of Rs 10,000, no specific acts of harassment or cruelty have been proved against the appellant by the prosecution.
7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment (2006) 6 Kant LJ 364 of the High Court and submitted that there was clear evidence led by the prosecution through PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 12 that there was demand of dowry of Rs 1000 and one tola of gold at the time of marriage and further there was a demand of dowry of Rs 10,000 after the marriage by the appellant and that the appellant harassed the deceased on account of which the deceased had no option but to commit suicide. The learned counsel for the State vehemently submitted that this is definitely not a case in which this Court should interfere with the impugned judgment (2006) 6 Kant LJ 364 of the High Court.
8. We have examined the impugned judgment (2006) 6 Kant LJ 364 of the High Court and we find that the High Court has in para 10 of its judgment impugned herein recorded its findings to hold the appellant guilty of the charges on the basis of evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12. Para 10 of the judgment is extracted hereunder: (Kant LJ pp. 369-70)
“10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage of the deceased with Accused 1, Rs 1000 cash was paid along with 1 tola of gold, watch, etc. and the accused continued to demand further dowry of Rs 10,000 from the deceased. The evidence in this regard is spoken to by PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 12. PW 2 Hussainbi is the mother of the deceased and she has stated in her evidence that at the time of marriage, 1 tola of gold and Rs 1000 cash was agreed to be paid and as per the talks, valuable articles and cash was paid to the accused. She also stated that for six months following the marriage, her daughter and Accused 1 husband got on well, but later on, her daughter was forced to bring Rs 10,000 cash and in that connection, Rs 2000 was paid by one Abdul Sab, the younger brother of PW 2's husband and she further states that her daughter came for Ramzan festival and told about the harassment given to her and she was sent back by stating that there was no money to be paid and again her daughter came along with Accused 1 after some days and at that time Accused 1 demanded a sum of Rs 8000 and when PW 2 expressed her inability to pay the said, the deceased went back weeping and saying her life may not be safe and once again came for Holi festival and asked for money and was again sent back without money and after 15 days Rajbee committed suicide in the house of her husband. PW 2 has clearly stated in her evidence that her daughter committed suicide because of the harassment given by the accused.”
9. What appears to have been lost sight of by the High Court is that the demand of Rs 10,000 was not towards dowry but for payment of a society loan. The evidence of PW 2 on which the High Court has heavily relied upon in the impugned judgment (2006) 6 Kant LJ 364 for convicting the appellant is clear that when the deceased came to her house on the occasion of Holi festival and she demanded money, she told her to ask from her uncle. Thus, the uncle of the deceased was the person who knew exactly what were the demands upon the deceased in connection with her marriage.
10. The uncle of the deceased, Ismailsab has been examined as PW 3 and his evidence is to the following effect:
“I know the accused, the daughter of my elder brother was given in marriage to A-1. PW 2 is the wife of my elder brother. I was present along with my brothers and parents at Banaginhal where marriage talks of Rajbee were held. One Ameerbee was the mediator. One tola gold and Rs 1000 were demanded for A-1 apart from some ornaments to Rajbee. Half tola boramala sara, 3 anas earrings, 3 anas bugudi were put to Rajbee at the time of her marriage. 2½ or 3 months after marriage talks, marriage was held between Rajbee and A-1 and as agreed, valuable ornaments, cash, utensils, bed, etc. were given. Dresses and watch were also given. After marriage Rajbee went to live with A-1. They were happy for six months, thereafterwards Rajbee demanded Rs 10,000 stating there was society loan of A-1. We expressed our inability. However, we consoled Rajbee that availability of amount will be seen. Again Rajbee had come to our house on some occasion. At that time my brother had given Rs 2000 to Rajbee, stating not to disclose it to A-1 otherwise he would demand more. Again she came to our village at Holi festival and demanded remaining amount and stated that she was harassed by the accused. Inability was expressed about fulfilling that demand. Rajbee went back to her husband's house weeping. On 29-3-1998 at about 5.30 p.m, we received some message that there was hurt to Rajbee. I alone went to their house. When all other came to Kanaginhal it was 10.00 p.m Many persons had gathered there. Dead body was about to be removed to hospital. There was some mark on the neck of Rajbee. It was told that Rajbee died due to stomach pain. But she had no such pain, at any time. Rajbee committed suicide due to the harassment by the accused. I have given statement before the COI and Gadag Police and also the Tahsildar. Marriage card and photo are marked at Exts. P-5 and 6.”
From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that at the time of marriage there was no demand of Rs 10,000 towards society loan, and only Rs 1000 in cash, one tola of gold and other articles were demanded and were agreed and given to the appellant. It further appears from the evidence of PW 3 that after the marriage, the appellant and the deceased were happy for six months and thereafter the deceased demanded Rs 10,000 stating that there was a society loan of A-1 (the appellant) and the family expressed their inability and consoled the deceased that the availability of the amount will be seen later and again when the deceased came to her house, Rs 2000 was paid to her but the balance was not paid and she committed suicide due to harassment by the appellant.
11. Thus the demand of Rs 10,000 was not a dowry demand but was in connection with a society loan of Rs 10,000 of the appellant. This Court in Appasaheb case (2007) 9 SCC 721 has referred to the provisions of Section 304-B IPC and in particular the Explanation appended to sub-section (1) thereof which says that the word “dowry” under Section 304-B will have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and has held that the word “dowry” in Section 304-B IPC would, therefore, mean
“any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties.”
In this case, the amount of Rs 10,000 demanded by the appellant through the deceased was for repayment of a society loan of the appellant and it had no connection with the marriage of the appellant and the deceased. Hence, even if there was demand of Rs 10,000 by the appellant, it was not a demand in connection with the dowry and the offence under Section 304-B was not attracted.
12. We are, however, of the view that the appellant was liable for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Section 498-A read with Explanation (b) thereto provides that if a husband of a woman subjects the woman to harassment with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security he shall be liable with punishment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. The demand of Rs 10,000 towards the society loan made by the appellant, thus, may not be a demand in connection with dowry but is certainly an unlawful demand for a property or valuable security and there is clear evidence of the prosecution to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellant on account of her failure to meet the aforesaid demand of Rs 10,000.
13. Regarding the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 2 of the Act defines “dowry” to mean—
“2. … any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,
at or before or any time after the marriage….”
14. On a reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in particular, PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 12, we find that a sum of Rs 1000 in cash and one tola of gold in addition to other articles were given to the appellant at the time of marriage. Hence, the aforesaid cash and articles have been given towards dowry. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that if any person, after the commencement of the Act, comes or takes or objects the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable for the term mentioned therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 3, however, states that nothing in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall apply in relation to—(a) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride; and (b) presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom. The proviso under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2), however, states that such presents must be entered in a list maintained in accordance with the Rules made under this Act. Hence, the section clearly intends to exempt presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride or the bridegroom from the prohibition against dowry under the Act. Perhaps for this reason, the trial court has taken a view that if anything was given to the appellant in the form of “varopachara” such payment may not attract the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court, however, has found that the appellant was guilty of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but has not considered the offences to be grave and has imposed punishments for only six months for each of the offences in accordance with the proviso to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the lenient view taken by the High Court of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the High Court in respect of the offences under the said Act.
15. In the result, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC and the sentence thereunder but maintain the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. We maintain the sentence of six months' imprisonment awarded to the appellant under the Dowry Prohibition Act for each of the offences under the said Act and award sentence of approximately two years which the appellant is stated to have already undergone for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and further direct that the sentences under Section 498-A IPC as well as the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will run concurrently.
16. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The bail bonds stand discharged.