Surinder Nath vs Kiran Bala

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—Accused-petitioner has filed this revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 4.1.1997, whereby his conviction u/s 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short, the ''Act'') and sentence for six months'' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default RI for one month awarded by the Trial Court are affirmed.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent-complainant Kiran Bala was married to accused-petitioner on 5.5.1986 at Nangal. All that time her father gave dowry articles worth Rs. 50,000/-, the details of which are attached with the complaint. All these articles were entrusted to the accused at the time of marriage. Accused being dissatisfied with the dowry articles, immediately after the marriage started maltreating the complainant-respondent. The complainant was in service in BBMB at Nangal township before her marriage. Accused started demanding her salary that she received even before her marriage. When her woeful story was told to her parents, they paid Rs. 8,000/- to the accused-petitioner. Her previous salary was again demanded on 19.2.1987 by the accused threatening that in case she fails to abide by that demand, she has no place in the matrimonial home. Apprehending danger to her life, she started residing with her parents at Nangal. All attempts for reconciliation failed. Then she filed a petition for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was granted on 4.11.1987. Despite several demands made by her, accused declined to return the dowry articles. She alongwith her father went to her matrimonial home demanding return of dowry articles, but accused refused to return anything. After obtaining permission from the District Magistrate, Ropar, she filed a complaint under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, which was dismissed on 6.12.1988 as she could not attend the Court because of her indisposition. Thereafter, she filed this complaint against the petitioner.

After recording preliminary evidence, accused was summoned. He denied the charge u/s 6 of the Act. Complainant adduced her evidence. Accused also examined three witnesses in his defence.

Scanning the evidence minutely and finding the complainant''s evidence cogent and reliable, the learned Magistrate held the accused-petitioner guilty u/s 6 of the said Act and convicted him as stated above.

Accused-petitioner filed an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was also dismissed.

Accused-petitioner''s learned Counsel submitted that no dowry articles worth the name were given to the accused at the time of marriage. Complainant- respondent has filed false complaint against him. Whatever articles were given to him at the time of marriage in dowry, he has already returned. Thus, according to him, the Courts below have wrongly held him guilty u/s 6 of the Act. Respondent''s learned Counsel supported the judgments of the Courts below and contended that the offence was proved beyond doubt against the accused and hence, he was properly convicted.

From the Trial Court''s judgment, it is evident that in the cross-examination of the complainant, Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner asked her that list of dowry articles was prepared at the time of marriage and its one copy was handed over to the accused, she answered in affirmative. She was also asked in cross- examination that at one point of time, accused called her as he was to return certain dowry articles to her and wanted her to sign the receipt in token thereof, but as she declined to sign the receipt, he did not return even those articles. In reply to these questions, the complainant stated that as all the dowry articles were not being returned by the accused to her, she insisted that all dowry articles be returned, then only she will sign the receipt, but the accused declined to return all other articles of dowry and refused to return even those articles of dowry, which he was offering to return. From this line of cross-examination, it becomes apparent that the accused admits that at the time of marriage, dowry articles were given, a list of dowry articles was prepared, as per the provision of the Act, a copy of that list was given to the accused also and it is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that dowry articles were given at Nangal, they were taken away by the accused to his parental home and despite repeated demands made by the complainant, he has not returned those articles. The statement of the complainant is duly corroborated by her witnesses Dayal Singh PW 2 and Iqbal Singh PW 3. Anil Kumar, complainant-Kiran Bala''s brother, has also corroborated the testimony of complainant. In view of this evidence, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly held that the evidence adduced by the accused is not believable. Even during arguments, petitioner''s learned Counsel admitted that few of the dowry articles are still lying with the accused-petitioner, which he is ready and willing to return.

From the Trial Court''s judgment, it is apparent that even on 15.10.1991 the Trial Magistrate had passed an order that the accused-petitioner should return all the dowry articles to the complainant within a period of three months failing which an amount equal to the value of this property be recovered from him. Despite this order, accused-petitioner has not returned the dowry articles to the cpmplainant- Kiran Bala.

Section 6 of the Act provides that if dowry articles are received by the person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage they are given, that person shall transfer it to the woman within three months, if they are received before marriage, within three months if they are received at or after marriage, and within three months of her attaining the majority, if at the time of marriage, she was a minor and till the dowry articles are returned to the woman, they shall be held in trust for the benefit of the woman.

Its Sub-clause (2) provides that "if any person fails to transfer any property as required by Sub-section (1) within the time specified therein or as required by Sub-section (3), he shall be liable to punishment''.

Sub-clause (3) refers to the case where the woman dies.

Thus, it is apparent that the complainant has proved that the dowry articles, as per Annexure-A, were given to the accused at the time of her marriage, accused is in possession of those articles and when she demanded them back, accused has declined to return them.

Thus, in my considered view, the Courts below have rightly held him guilty u/s 6 of the Act and have rightly sentenced him to undergo RI for six months. It is submitted that he has already deposited the fine. Resultantly, the revision, being merit less, is hereby dismissed.