MANOHAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge 10 Nagpur for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. The appellants were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 318/2002. They were tried along with accused Nos. 3 to 7 for the offences punishable u/ss. 147, 504 r/w 149, 506 r/w 149, 323 r/w. 149 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also tried for the offences punishable u/ss. 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused Nos. 3 to 7 have been acquitted of all the charges. The appellants have also been acquitted of rest of the charges. As already indicated, they have been convicted only for the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Miss Jaya, the sister of the complainant Gopal Babulal Upadhyaya, was married to the appellant No. 2-Jitendra Manohar Dixit on 28th June, 1998 at Arya Samaj Mandir. However, the appellant No. 1 was not happy as no formal marriage and reception had taken place. The appellant No. 1 is father of the appellant No. 2. It is alleged that appellant No. 1 started demanding dowry from the complainant the elder brother of Miss Jaya. The appellant No. 2, however, intervened and arranged a meeting in which it was decided that there would be formal tilak ceremony and marriage ceremony. The marriage was to take place on 22.1.1999 and the tilak ceremony was to take place two days earlier i.e. on 20.1.1999.

(2.) Accordingly, the bridegroom i.e. appellant No. 2 along with appellant No. 1 and other relatives reached Dharmashala at Nagpur from Amravati. The marriage procession started at 5.00 p.m. and had reached the marriage hall of Dharmashala at 6.00 p.m. The sister of the complainant Miss Jaya and the appellant No. 2-Jitendra went to the stage as per usual practice in the marriage reception. The marriage ceremony continued upto 10.30 p.m. It is alleged that, in the meantime, the appellants and other accused started making nuisance and they picked up quarrel with the complainant. They had abused the complainant and had thrown furniture in the marriage hall. The appellant No. 1 went to the stage and told Miss Jaya that the gift articles given by her brother was not of good quality and that her brother should give Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and 15 tolas gold. It is also alleged that the other accused including appellant No. 2 also repeated the same demand and made it clear to the complainant that Saptapadi ceremony would not take place unless their demands were fulfilled. Because of this, the quarrel precipitated. The appellants and other accused had allegedly assaulted the complainant and his brother Rajendra. The complainant lodged the report at Police Station and offence was registered. The police reached the spot and arrested the appellants and other accused. Panchnama of the spot was drawn and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate. Since the offence punishable u/s. 395 I.P.C. is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) The learned trial Judge framed the charges mentioned herein-above. As stated earlier, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 only were convicted, and that too for the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.