Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 332 (KAR)

SHAM PRASAD BEKAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-04-03

KUMAR RAJARATNAM

body2003
KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS is one of those extraordinary cases where the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), seek the father of the deceased P. W. 1 and the brother of the deceased P. W. 4 and the other witnesses to the prosecution P. Ws. 5 and 6 to be arrayed as accused along with them under the provisions of the act. The Trial Court having rejected the same, the petitioners are before this Court in revision. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as succinctly set out by Mr. S. J. Chouta, counsel for the accused are briefly as follows. The petitioners are accused in S. C. No. 50 of 2001. Charges have been framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. They have categorically denied either the demand or acceptance of any dowry in consideration for the marriage of the deceased with the 1st petitioner and also of any harassment or cruelty to the deceased prior to her death. The trial is in progress and 6 prosecution witnesses including respondents 2 to 6 have been examined. As per the allegations, the 1st petitioner had married Geetha (deceased ). Geetha was the daughter of respondent 2. Their marriage took place according to the customs on 10-1-2000 in Kundapura Town. Geetha died on 13-4-2000 in the house of the petitioners under unnatural circumstances. Allegation of the prosecution is that the accused had poured kerosene and ignited it. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the accused had demanded from P. W. 1 (respondent 2) dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash and gold ornaments weighing about 30 pawans. However, P. W. 1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and gold ornaments weighing about 18 pawans as dowry. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has so far examined six witnesses. P. W. 1, the father of the deceased in his evidence in the chief examination, has categorically admitted that on 2-12-1999, i. e. , on the date of engagement, he had given a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash and gold ornaments weighing about 18 pawans as dowry. ( 4 ) THE prosecution has so far examined six witnesses. P. W. 1, the father of the deceased in his evidence in the chief examination, has categorically admitted that on 2-12-1999, i. e. , on the date of engagement, he had given a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with 1 pawan gold ring to the 1st petitioner and 15 pawan gold ornaments to the deceased. Even in the cross-examination, P. W. 1 has stated that he had given dowry to the accused in the presence of respondents 3 to 5. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. In her cross-examination, she has stated that on 2-12-1999, P. Ws. 1 and 4, in the presence of P. Ws. 5 and 6 paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and 15 pawans of gold ornaments to the accused. However, in the cross-examination she has categorically denied the payment of the said sum and gold ornaments to the accused by P. Ws. 1 and 4. ( 6 ) P. WS. 4 to 6 also have admitted in their chief examination that p. W. 1 has given a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as dowry to the accused in their presence. ( 7 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Chouta, learned Counsel for the petitioners that in view of the categorical statements made by the prosecution witnesses admitting the payment of dowry, an application under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. was moved by the petitioners to proceed against p. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 6 for alleged offence under Sections 2 and 3 of the dowry Prohibition Act. The said application, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 22-7-2002. Therefore, the petitioners (accused) have come up in this revision petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 22-7-2002 and to direct the Court below to take cognizance against respondents 2 to 5 for an alleged offence under Sections 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. ( 8 ) AT the outset, such an application under Section 319 is not maintainable for the simple reason that the accused have denied havingreceived dowry when the plea was put to the accused. ( 8 ) AT the outset, such an application under Section 319 is not maintainable for the simple reason that the accused have denied havingreceived dowry when the plea was put to the accused. The stand of the accused before the Trial Court is that no dowry was ever paid to the accused by P. W. 1, the father of the deceased or by P. W. 2, the mother of the deceased. It does not lie in the lips of the accused to seek prosecution of witnesses who speak about the demand by the accused for dowry and the payment of dowry by P. W. 1. When the accused himself has categorically denied having received any dowry it would not be open for the accused to contend that P. W. 1 paid dowry and therefore, will have to be treated as a co-accused under the provisions of the Act. ( 9 ) IT was strenuously submitted by Mr. Chouta, learned Counsel for the accused petitioners that even the act of giving dowry is punishable under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 reads as follows. "if any person, after commencement of this Act gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more". By this, it was submitted that even a person who gives or abets in giving dowry is liable to be punished. If somebody gives dowry by way of compulsion, such act cannot be considered as a voluntary act. It is highly doubtful whether a person who gives dowry as a result of compulsion should be punished along with the accused. The greed of the accused in taking the dowry cannot be put on the same footing as the parents of the deceased who may have been compelled to give dowry. The contention of p. Ws. 1 and 2 is that they were forced to give dowry on the demand made by the accused. Such compulsion can never be on par with the avarice of the accused. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act also gives immunity to the witness against prosecution. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 reads as follows. The contention of p. Ws. 1 and 2 is that they were forced to give dowry on the demand made by the accused. Such compulsion can never be on par with the avarice of the accused. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act also gives immunity to the witness against prosecution. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 reads as follows. "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act". ( 10 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relied on an unreported order of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 1997, dated 28-11-1997. Apparently, that was a case where the High Court had suo motu given certain directions to the Trial Court to initiate proceedings against the father of the bride. The Supreme Court pronounced that the High court should not have passed such suo motu direction to initiate proceedings against the father of the bride along with the main accused. ( 11 ) MR. Chouta tried to distinguish the order of the Supreme Court by stating that the order of the Supreme Court may not have any relevance to the facts of this case. It was submitted that the Supreme Court dealt with the case where the High Court gave suo motu directions and the case before us according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners was on the basis of an application made under Section 319 of the Code of criminal Procedure. ( 12 ) IF in every case, a Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. application is made against the father of the deceased to implead him as a co-accused under the provisions of the Act, it would be against public policy and against public interest and contrary to the spirit and ambit of the Act. ( 13 ) WHEN the accused himself denies having received dowry there is 110 question of the accused seeking to implead the father and the mother of the deceased and the witness as co-accused under the provisions of the Act. Apart from anything else, the purpose of the Act is to deter persons from taking dowry as consideration for marriage. ( 13 ) WHEN the accused himself denies having received dowry there is 110 question of the accused seeking to implead the father and the mother of the deceased and the witness as co-accused under the provisions of the Act. Apart from anything else, the purpose of the Act is to deter persons from taking dowry as consideration for marriage. The Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of social evil of dowry and even the very demand for dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage is referable to dowry. ( 14 ) IT is abundantly clear that the application made by the accused under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. is misconceived and the Trial Court committed no error in dismissing the said application. There is no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .