Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 295 (PAT)

Sogarath Pandit v. State Of Bihar

2001-03-30

A.K.SINHA

body2001
Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.1998 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Cri. Appeal No. 122/2 of 1993/1996 whereby and whereunder he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner after setting aside the sentence of fine. The substantive sentence of six months R.l. as awarded by the trial court under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was however, affirmed. 2. The relevant facts, concerning this revision are that Yashoda Devi daughter of Banti Pandit was married to the petitioner, namely Sogarath Pandit six to seven years before the filing of the first information report and after marriage Yashoda Devi went to her Sasural and lived peacefully for some time. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded she buffalo when he had gone there to take back his wife from her house and the buffalo was given and Yashoda Devi went to her Sasural. It is alleged that the petitioner used to torture Yashoda Devi and drove her from the house and thereafter she came back to her parents house and complained about the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the petitioner. Thereafter, the informant went to ask the son-in-law regarding the maltreatment meted out to his daughter on which the petitioner demanded a cycle. On the basis of the report of the informant a case under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was instituted against the petitioner and charge sheet was also submitted by the police under those counts and the petitioner was put on trial. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of offences and convicted him under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for six months on each count and also sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate court affirmed the order of conviction recorded by the trial court but modified the sentence in the manner as indicated above. 3. 5000/-. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate court affirmed the order of conviction recorded by the trial court but modified the sentence in the manner as indicated above. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire evidence is accepted, no offence under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter called the Act) is made out, in as much as, as the admitted position is that the marriage took place 6 to 7 years before the initiation of the case and P.W. 5 Yashoda Devi has herself admitted that her marriage was performed eight years before and no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage nor any dispute regarding the demand of dowry took place at the time of marriage. She has also stated that accused petitioner had not made any demand of she buffalo or cycle as dowry before the marriage. Similarly, the informant has also admitted that nothing was demanded at the time of settlement of marriage and he had actually no talk with the petitioner at the time of marriage. He also admitted to this extent that he had no talk with Sogarath Pandit (petitioner) nor he has made any enquiry from him as to why he sent back his daughter and he does not visit his place. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the evidence on record clearly go to show that there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage or before the marriage nor there was any agreement or any assurance given by the informant to give him she buffalo or cycle as dowry for consideration of marriage. Therefore, even if any demand of she buffalo and cycle is made by the petitioner after lapse of several years such demand cannot be treated as dowry for the consideration of marriage. 4. Therefore, even if any demand of she buffalo and cycle is made by the petitioner after lapse of several years such demand cannot be treated as dowry for the consideration of marriage. 4. The term "Dowry" has been defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act and it runs as follows : "Definition of "dowry" : In this Act, "dowry" means 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; Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any gifts made by a person other than those specified in sub-clause (b), at the time of the marriage to either party to tne marriage shall not be deemed to be marriage expenses". 5. In this context I may quote the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which reads as hereunder : "3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry : "If any person after the commencement of this Act, gives or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. 4. Penalty for demanding dowry lf any person after the commencement of this Act, demands directly or indirectly from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees Provided that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may, by general order, specify in this behalf". The crucial question which has to be considered in this case is as to whether the demand of cycle or she buffalo which the petitioner is alleged to have made after the lapse of several years of the marriage can be treated as dowry within the meaning of section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which defines dowry as indicated above. 6. 6. The evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5 who are none else but the informant and his father clearly go to show that no demand of dowry was made by the petitioner at or before the marriage. It is also manifest that the informants daughter went to live in her parents house after lapse of five years and it is alleged that she was driven out from Sasural by the petitioner who demanded a cycle. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 4 and 5 which may show that the demand of cycle was made by the petitioner as a consideration for the marriage or that it was referable to the demand of dowry as a consideration of marriage. Apart from that the allegation of demand of she buffalo and cycle lack corroboration from the evidence of independent witnesses. I am therefore, of the view that the alleged demand made by the petitioner cannot be referable to a demand for the consideration of marriage and if it is not for the consideration of the marriage, it will not attract the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the dowry Act. 7. Having considered the evidence and the materials on record and in view of the observation made above, I am of the view that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. As such, the order and sentence passed against the petitioner under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. 8. In the result, therefore, this revision application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.