MOHSINA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Mohsina filed a criminal complaint case against Arshad Hasan, Akhtar, Aszad and Smt. Naseema. After recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons were summoned to face to trial. When the charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Smt. Mohsina, Rajeev, Sukkad and Mahmood were examined on behalf of the complainant. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. DW1 Irshad Ali and DW2 Muntazir were examined in defence. After considering the evidence on record, accused persons were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and were sentenced appropriately. They were, however, exonerated of the charge of offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, vide judgment and order dated 11.08.2006, passed by learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Aggrieved against their conviction, the accused-appellants preferred criminal appeal, which was allowed, vide judgment and order dated 18.07.2007. The judgment passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside. The accused persons were set free. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal revision was preferred by Smt. Mohsina (complainant).

(2.) The fact, to which there is no dispute, is that Smt. Mohsina was married to Arshad Hasan. The other accused persons belonged to the family of Arshad. Smt. Mohsina has said that while her husband was going to Saudi Arabia, he desired financial assistance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Arshad requested Mohsina to arrange for the said money from her father. Mohsina's father arranged Rs. 50,000/-, which was given to Arshad. Arshad went to Saudi Arabia. The lower appellate court rightly held that the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- was in the form of financial assistance and not in the shape of dowry demand. If the husband demanded money as a financial assistance, the same is not covered by the definition of 'dowry'. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, committed a mistake by holding that the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- by Arshad from Mohsina was in the form of 'dowry'.

(3.) The word 'dowry' is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The word 'dowry' is also explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukbir Singh vs State of Punjab, 2001 8 SCC 633, that 'dowry should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. Customary gift or payment in connection with any ceremony unrelated to the marriage, do not fall within the ambit of dowry'.