KUNJU KUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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.