VIJAYABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The matter arises under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The second appellant and the third appellant are the parents of the first appellant madhusadan. The prosecution case is that Aruna the bride to be in the case was residing in her own house with her brother in the city of Nagpur. She had no parents. Therefore, the brother and the sister were staying in their own house. Sharad Pathak (Public Witness 2 the uncle of the deceased was at the relevant time serving in the central Public Works Department and he was residing in the locality called Chatrapatinagar, Nagpur. Aruna was a Commerce Graduate. Since her parents died, Public Witness 2 was taking the responsibility of arranging for an alliance. A-1 and his parents were also staying in Surendranagar, Nagpur. While so, according to the prosecution, on 6/4/1986 a negotiation took place for settling the marriage of Aruna with A-1 and in that connection all the three accused went to see Aruna. It is alleged that though they approved the girl, certain talks took place regarding the expenses and gifts etc. It is also alleged that A-1 proposed to open two joint fixed deposit accounts of Rs. 10,000. 00 in each bank in his name and in the name of Aruna deceased. There were also some proposals about the other items that have to be taken care of at the time of the marriage. Thus the marriage negotiations were finalised between A-1 and aruna. In pursuance of that settlement, a betrothal ceremony was also performed at the house of Public Witness 2 on 11/4/1986. Photographs of the said ceremony were also taken. On that very day. A-1 supplied a form with signature to be submitted to the Registrar under the Special Marriage Act and some gold was also purchased. On 13/4/1986, Aruna and her brother were invited to the house of Madhusadan for meal and on that day, he gave a form for keeping the amount in fixed deposit. On 18/4/1986, a joint account was opened in the name of A-1 and Aruna in the State Bank of India branch Surendranagar, Nagpur and the marriage was fixed on 2/6/1986. The remaining amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 was to be kept in fixed deposit in Canara Bank. A form was to be submitted before the registration of the marriage. As misfortune would have it, the things did not go on smoothly and A-1 did not supply the birth certificate though the marriage date was fixed for 2/6/1986. Then, according to the prosecution, though the marriage was proposed to be a registered marriage, there was no activity on the part of the accused and, therefore, Public Witness 2 became suspicious and he and manohar went to the house of accused on 28/4/1986. At that time, the parents of A-1 were also present there. During the course of the talks, accused 2 and 3 remarked that the girl is mannerless and, therefore, they did not approve the saidgirl and that marriage should be treated as cancelled. Public Witness 2 and his relatives went to Bhankak at the quarter of accused 1 and it is alleged that A-1 told them that he was defamed in the community alleging that he has taken Rs. 50,000. 00 as dowry and A-1 further said that unless Rs. 50,000. 00 is paid to him, he would not marry Aruna. Consequently, Public Witness 2 and others who accompanied him returned back to Nagpur and Public Witness 2 (Sharad Pathak) informed his niece deceased Aruna about the demand of the accused. She was shocked to hear the cancellation of the marriage and unfortunately, committed suicide by burning herself pouring kerosene. A report was given to the police and a case was registered under section 306 Indian Penal Code. Trial commenced and sometime later during the course of the trial, a charge under Dowry Prohibition Act was also framed. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charge. The trial court acquitted all the accused holding that the prosecution case regarding the payment of Rs. 50,000. 00 is doubtful and, at any rate, the same is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, no offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out. So far as Section 306 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the trial court held that the accused would not be held liable for any such abetment of suicide.