Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1407 (RAJ)

Tola Ram v. State

1999-11-21

G.L.GUPTA

body1999
Honble GUPTA, J.–Revision Petition No. 448/97 is directed against the orders dt. 12.8.97 and 19.9.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu whereby he rejected the application of complainant-petitioner Tola Ram for taking cognizance against the respondents u/S. 304-B IPC. The petitioner has filed a separate revision (478/97) also against the order dt. 19.9.97. Both the matters are being disposed of by this common order. (2). The contention of Mr. Mehta was that there are clear averments in the complaint that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and, therefore cognizance ought to have been taken u/S. 304 B IPC along with other offences. He pointed out that soon before her death the deceased had informed Tola Ram that her in-laws were harassing her for taking the ornaments. Relying on the case of S.Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1) Mr. Mehta contended that the revisions be accepted and the trial court be directed to take cognizance u/S. 304 B IPC also against Sukhdeva Ram. His further contention was that the police has committed error in not challenging Shanti Devi and Manoj and the learned Sessions Judge ought to have taken cognizance against them u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. (3). Mr. Sharma, on the other hand, submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned orders after considering all the aspects of the matter and the revisio- ns be dismissed. (4). Mr. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor supported the petitioner. (5). I have carefully considered the above arguments. The relevant facts are that Sulochana (23) was married to Ramdeo s/o Sukhdeva Ram in 1993. She met unnatural death on 17.5.97 as a result of burn injuries. It is alleged that some time after the marriage, the parents-in-laws of Sulochana and brother-in-law Manoj started demanding dowry and gave beating to her. They demanded ornaments from Sulochana to be used in the marriage of Manoj. In the report filed by Tola Ram(father of Sulochana) it was stated that he had met Sulochana on 15.5.1997 when she told him about the cruelty and on 17.5.97 he was informed by Sita Ram, Sarpanch that Sulochana had died of burn injuries. On the report of Tola Ram, a case u/S. 498-A IPC, 304-B and 306 IPC was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan against Sukhdeva Ram only u/Sec. 306 and 498-A IPC. On the report of Tola Ram, a case u/S. 498-A IPC, 304-B and 306 IPC was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan against Sukhdeva Ram only u/Sec. 306 and 498-A IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. An application u/Sec. 193 Cr.P.C. was moved by complainant Tola Ram, which was supported by the Public Prosecutor, for taking cognizance against Shanti Devi (mother-in-law) and Manoj (brother-in-law) as also for taking cognizance u/S. 304 B IPC against Sukhdeva Ram, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. (6). The first question to be considered is whether the learned Sessions Judge has erred in not taking cognizance against Shanti Devi and Manoj in exercise of power u/Sec. 193 Cr.P.C. in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2), it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the trial court has got no power u/Sec. 193 Cr.P.C. to implead new accused, and the only provision, for impleading additional accused in a case, is Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Under that Section, additional accused can be summoned only after the evidence is recorded. In the instant case, no evidence has yet been recorded and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge could not exercise power u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. It is obvious that the learned Sessions Judge had no power to implead new accused in exercise of power u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application of the petitioner for impleading Shanti Devi and Manoj as accused in the case has rightly been rejected by the trial court. (7). Now as to the contention of the petitioner that cognizance ought to have been taken for the offence u/S. 304 B IPC against Sukhdeva Ram, the allegations are that Sukhdeva Ram had demanded the ornaments from the deceased to use them in the marriage of Manoj. The question is whether demand of the ornaments by the father-in-law from his daughter-in-law for use in a marriage constitutes de- mand of dowry. (8). The `dowry has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which definition is application to Sec. 304-B IPC. It is reproduced hereunder- ``2. The question is whether demand of the ornaments by the father-in-law from his daughter-in-law for use in a marriage constitutes de- mand of dowry. (8). The `dowry has been defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which definition is application to Sec. 304-B IPC. It is reproduced hereunder- ``2. In this Act,`dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or (a) by any 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 after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. (9). A reading of the definition makes it clear that the dowry will be only that property or valuable security which is given by one party to the other party of the marriage as a consideration for the marriage of the said party. The words `consideration for the marriage are of great significance. It is not that every property or valuable security 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 would become `dowry. Only that property will come under the definition of the dowry which is given ``as consideration for the marriage. The Apex Court in the case of S.Gopal Reddy (supra) relied on by Mr. Mehta, has made it clear that any demand of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa would fall within the mischief of dowry under the Act if such demand is relatable only to the consi- deration of marriage. It has been further observed that dowry as a quid pro quo for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bridegroom by friends and relatives. (10). It is thus crystal clear that the demand or giving of any property or valuable security if, is relatable to the consideration of marriage then it will amount to dowry and not otherwise. (11). (10). It is thus crystal clear that the demand or giving of any property or valuable security if, is relatable to the consideration of marriage then it will amount to dowry and not otherwise. (11). In the instant case, the facts indicate that the accused had demanded the ornaments from the deceased to be used them in the marriage of Manoj. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that this demand of Sukhdeva Ram accused was relatable to the consideration of marriage of the deceased. It is common know- ledge that in this part of the country, the middle class families with great difficulty keep one set of ornaments and that set is used in the marriages of all the sons. The demand of the set of ornaments by the father-in-law from the daughter-in-law for temporary use in the marriage of another son cannot amount to the demand of dowry, obviously because it is not the demand as a consideration of her marriage. It may be that the ornaments were the property of the daughter-in-law (Sulochana) yet the second ingredient that they were demanded as a consideration of the marriage is not fulfilled. That being so, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any error in not taking cognizance u/S. 304 B IPC against Sukhdeva Ram. (12). Mr. Mehta, to buttress his contention, laid emphasis on the following observations of the Apex Court in the judgment of S.Gopal Reddy (supra)- ``Any `demand of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice versa would fall within the mischief of `dowry under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognised claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage. (13). The observations only indicate that demand not only from the parents or relations of bride would amount to dowry, but the demand from the bride or through the bride also amounts to dowry, but then the second condition is also re- quired to be fulfilled that, that demand was relatable to the consideration of the marriage. As in the instant case, the demand of the ornaments from the deceased was for temporary use in the marriage of Manoj, the same cannot be considered to be the demand of dowry. As in the instant case, the demand of the ornaments from the deceased was for temporary use in the marriage of Manoj, the same cannot be considered to be the demand of dowry. There is no substance in the contention of Mr. Mehta. (14). For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in both the revisions which are hereby dismissed.