TEENA ALEX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was married to the second respondent herein. The third respondent is the mother of the second respondent and the 4th respondent is the brother of the second respondent. After the marriage, matrimonial relationship got strained, leading to several matrimonial proceedings. The revision petitioner filed CMP No.5072/2017 arraying respondents 2 to 4 as accused and alleging that, at the time of fixing her marriage, the first accused and the father of the first accused, who has since deceased, had demanded dowry of 50 sovereigns of gold and Rs.2,00,000/-. The parents of the revision petitioner agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and 40 sovereigns of gold. On the date of the engagement, the father of the revision petitioner entrusted Rs.2,00,000/- to the father of the first accused and at the time of marriage, 40 sovereigns of gold ornaments were worn by the revision petitioner. After the marriage, the first accused, in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3, allegedly misappropriated the gold ornaments. Ultimately she had to initiate judicial proceedings for recovery of the gold ornaments and money. Alleging that the accused had committed offences punishable under sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 34 IPC, the revision petitioner laid the above complaint.

(2.) As a part of section 202 Cr.P.C.enquiry, the statement of the revision petitioner and two other witnesses were recorded. The learned Magistrate, on an evaluation of the oral testimonies of the above two witnesses, concluded that, regarding the dowry allegedly claimed, there were divergent versions and hence, it was unbelievable. Further, stating that the revision petitioner failed to prove the prima facie case of demand for dowry and that the petitioner was bent upon to harass the accused persons, dismissed the complaint. This is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Heard both sides and examined the records.