Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 454 (KER)

Kunju Kunju v. State of Kerala

2007-07-25

V.RAMKUMAR

body2007
ORDER V. Ramkumar, J. 1. The revision petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 339/1994 on the file of the JFCM, Mavelikkara, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against them for an offence punishable under S.6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and were directed under S.6(3)(a) of the said Act to return either the immovables in specie entrusted at the time of marriage or their value amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and also Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) accepted in cash by way of dowry. A time limit of one month was fixed for return of the utensils or their value and the dowry in cash. 2. The marriage between the complainant and the 2nd accused who is the son of the 1st accused, was solemnised on 07/09/1992 at the bride's residence in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies. The parties are belonging to the Pulaya community. During the betrothal on 30/08/1992, a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) in cash was given to the 1st accused in the presence of the 2nd accused by way of dowry. Similarly, with the consent of the 2nd accused, the 1st accused had received utensils worth Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from the parents of the complainant. The post marital life of the complainant and the 2nd accused did not last long. On account of the cruel and inhuman behaviour of the 2nd accused and his mother, the complainant was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and return to her home. In spite of the repeated requests, the dowry as well as the utensils were not given back. This, in short, is the prosecution case which has been proved through PWs 1 to 3 and Exts. P1 and P2. The above conviction has been recorded against the revision petitioner after a careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. This Court, sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction. 3. What now survives for consideration is the question of adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. A reading of S.6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will clearly show that a sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory. This Court, sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction. 3. What now survives for consideration is the question of adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. A reading of S.6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 will clearly show that a sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory. The said provision as amended with effect from 09/11/1986 provides for punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but may extend to two years or with fine which shall not be less than Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) but which may extend to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) or with both. 4. It is true that demanding and accepting dowry is a social evil which has to be met with an iron hand. But it should not be forgotten that the parties to the marriage as well as their relatives had no grievance when the amounts were paid and the utensils were handed over. It is only when the marriage ran into rough weather that the above demand was made. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the community to which the petitioners belonging, I am of the view that penal servitude by way of incarceration is not warranted and that interests of justice will be adequately met by awarding an appropriate fine. Accordingly, for the conviction under S.6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them is set aside and instead, they are directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within one month from today, failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The direction issued under S.6(3)(a) of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court is not interfered with. This revision is disposed of as above.