- (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th September, 2006 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2006.
(2.) The facts very briefly are: 2.1 The appellant was married to Rajbee on 21st April, 1997. She committed suicide on 29th March, 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 498A and 304B read with Section 34 IPC as well as Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC. 2.2 The prosecution case was that at the time of marriage of the appellant with Rajbee(the deceased), Rs. 1,000/- 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. 2.3 At the trial, mother of the deceased was examined as P.W. 2 and two of her uncles were examined as P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 and besides them four other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 5, 7, 10 and 12, who all deposed about the demand of Rs. 1,000/- cash and one tola of gold as well as demand of Rs. 10,000/- and about the fact that Rs. 1,000/- 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. 2,000/- was paid but the balance of Rs. 8,000/- 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 2nd December, 1999. 2.4 Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka filed Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2000 before the High Court and by the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the order of the trial court only qua the appellanthusband and convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B 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 304B and in view of the sentence awarded under Section 304B, the High Court did not award any separate sentence for the offence under Section 498A. 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.
(3.) 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 P.W.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 P.W. 3, the uncle of the deceased. Regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/-, he submitted that the evidence of P.W.3, the uncle of the deceased, is clear that after six months of marriage, the deceased demanded Rs. 10,000/- from P.W. 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 and Another v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 9 SCC 721 in which it has been held that some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manures cannot be treated as dowry and, therefore, the provisions of Section 304B 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.;