SHARMA, J. - (1.) DINESH, Kamlesh and Ramwati, the appellants herein, were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli, who vide judgment dated November 29, 2002 convicted each of them under section 304b IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
(2.) THE informant Ashok Kumar (Pw. 10) submitted a written report at Police Station Hindaun City on October 29, 1994 with the averments that his sister Beena (since deceased) was married to appellant Dinesh on November 25, 1987. Soon after the marriage the appellants started harassing Beena in connection with the demand of dowry and ultimately murdered her on October 27, 1994. It also appears from record that prior to filing of the report by Ashok Kumar, proceedings under section 174 Crpc were instituted on the report lodged by appellant Dinesh on October 28, 1994. After usual investigation the police arrived at the conclusion that it was dowry death and charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City. Charge under section 304b IPC was framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence. One witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. I have heard rival submissions and weighed the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellants made following submissions:- (i) The charge was wrongly framed and it had seriously prejudiced the case of appellants. (ii) In the letter (Ex. P-3) wrote by deceased to her brother soon before her death, there was no mention of either demand of dowry or cruelty. (iii) The deceased was aggrieved from the conduct of her brother, since he cleverly withheld her ornaments and snapped relations with her. (iv) Mother and other brothers of the deceased, who could have been the best witnesses of the alleged incident, were not examined. (v) The allegation of demand of dowry was not established. (vi) The deceased lived happily with the appellants for a long time prior to the incident. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial I notice that Beena died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances. A look at the statement of Dr. Namonarayan Meena (Pw. 6) shows that while conducting post mortem on the dead body vide report (Ex. P-2) he found two ligature marks on the neck of the deceased and the possibility of hanging could not be ruled out. Conjoint reading of statements of prosecution witnesses demonstrates that death of deceased did not relate to the demand of dowry. It was however established that the deceased was drived to such a situation by her husband that she decided to commit suicide. The expression `dowry' is defined by Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 (for short `the Act'), as meaning anything which is given either directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or 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 after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. The act has been amended by Act 63 of 1984 and Act 43 of 1986. Formerly dowry was defined as property given as consideration for the marriage but the words "as consideration for the marriage" have been omitted and substituted by the words "in connection with the marriage". Now dowry means any property given or agreed to be given by the parents of a party to the marriage at marriage or before marriage or at any time after marriage in connection with the marriage.
(3.) CONSIDERING the definition of dowry their Lordships of Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam (2004)3 SCC 199, indicated thus:- (Para 14) "the definition of the term "dowry" under Section 2 of the Dowry Act shows that any property or valuable security given or "agreed to be given" either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage "at or before or after the marriage" as a "consideration for the marriage of the said parties" would become "dowry" punishable under the Dowry Act. Property or valuable security so as to constitute "dowry" within the meaning of the Dowry Act must, therefore, be given or demanded "as consideration for the marriage". Interpreting the words "in connection with the marriage of the said parties", the Apex court in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2001)8 SCC 633, propounded as under:- " The word "dowry" in Section 304-B has to be understood as it is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of "dowry". The word "agreement" referred in Section 2 has also been considered in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (1998)3 SCC 309, by their Lordships of Supreme Court and it was observed as under:- (Para 16) "demand for dowry neither conceives nor would conceive of any agreement. The word "agreement" referred to in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 has to be inferred on the facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that conviction can only be if there is agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. "dowry" definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or talking dowry and Section 4 which deals with penalty for demanding dowry, under the 1961 Act and the Indian Penal Code. This makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other ingredients being satisfied is punishable. This leads to the inference, when persistent demands for TV and scooter are made from the bride after marriage or from her parents, it would constitute to be in connection with the marriage and it would be a case of demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 304-B IPC. It is not always necessary that there be any agreement for dowry. " ;