VIDHYA DHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revisionist has been convicted by the courts below under Sec. 420 IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. THE complainant in the case was the girl's father while the revisionist is the boy's father. Marriage was settled and it is stated that on April 1, 1971 preliminary ceremonies of Chhidna and Phaldan were performed by the complainant and April 22, 1971 was settled as the marriage-day. Nearabout April 15, 1971 (about a week before the marriage-day a gold-ring and golden-necklace are again said to have been presented through Tulsi Ram who was a co-accused before the trial court on account of alleged demand of the revisionist. THEreafter, it is claimed on the marriage day, the revisionist failed to bring the marriage party and indeed did not turn up at all. THE revisionist's case was that on April 21, 1971 he has sent a telegram seeking confirmation of the date and on receipt of confirmation, he had taken the Barat but there was no one to receive them. Both the courts below have recorded the finding that the version of the complainant about the marriage party failing to turn up was correct and disbelieved the story that the revisionist had taken the Barat of his son but they had not been received.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel and perused the record, I have come to the conclusion that the ingredients of Sec. 420 IPC cannot be regarded as having been fully proved by the material on record. Before conviction under Sec. 420 IPC dishonesty at the time of receiving the presents had to be established. Subsequent default in or failure to bring the Barat in this case by itself can only create suspicion of such dishonesty but would not suffice to prove the same. In the present case apart from this subsequent default there is nothing to fix that the intentions of the revisionist's party were dishonest from the very start. In fact the exchange of telegrams on 21st April 1971 suggests that some differences and misunderstandings had arisen. It is not for the criminal court to apportion blame for the break-down or to decide which party was the greater sufferer in reputation and anguish or financially. Even assuming that the girl's party was the sufferer conviction under Sec. 420 IPC cannot follow. The one cardinal requirement on the connection was that it had to be shown through direct evidence or circumstantially that while entering the relation and inducing the complainant to give the presents on April 1, 19U1 or subsequently securing the jewellery presents nearabout April 15, 1971, the revisionist's party was merely trying to cheat the complainant and secure the presents! without any intention of having a relationship with his daughter or peforming a marriage on April 22, 1971. There is nothing to show this. In fact the learned counsel for the revisionist has cogently pointed out that there had been an earlier instance of similar break-down of complainants negotiations with another party about which also the complainant had filed a criminal complaint as well as a civil suit. The ingredients of the offence not being proved.