MODINSAB KASIMSAB KANCHAGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th September, 2006 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2006.

(2.) The facts very briefly are:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no demand for dowry by the appellant. He submitted that Rs. 1000/- and one tola of gold was given by P.W.2, the mother of the deceased to the appellant as "Varopachara" as has been found by the trial court on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3, the uncle of the deceased. Regarding the demand of Rs. 10,000/-, he submitted that the evidence of P.W.3, the uncle of the deceased, is clear that after six months of marriage, the deceased demanded Rs. 10,000/- from P.W. 2, her mother, stating that there was a society loan of the appellant. He submitted that the demand of Rs. 10,000/- was, therefore, not towards dowry but was for repayment of a society loan. He cited a decision of this Court in Appasaheb and Another v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 9 SCC 721 in which it has been held that some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manures cannot be treated as dowry and, therefore, the provisions of Section 304B IPC which applies to only the demand made in connection with dowry could not be attracted. He finally submitted that although all the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was harassment to the deceased in connection with the demand of Rs. 10,000/-, no specific acts of harassment or cruelty have been proved against the appellant by the prosecution.