Vijaya vs Banshilal And Another

The wife has preferred this appeal against acquittal of her husband Banshilal from the charge under Section 498A, 406 & 407 of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Facts of the case in brief are that complainant Vijaya married with respondent No.1 Banshilal in Shajapur on 11. 7.1988 the as per Hindu rites and rituals.

As per the schedule, all the rites and rituals are to be performed between 9 to 11.7.1988. All the guests reached Shajapur on 9.7.1988 but Respondent No.1 reached on next day i.e. 10.7.1988 at 1.30 afternoon. Even prior to that the engagement was scheduled on 2.7.1988. At the time of engagement Respondent No.1 demanded Rs.20,000/-. Somehow parents of the complainant could arrange only Rs.15,000/-, which were handed over to Respondent No.1. Clothes and apparels of Rs.4,000/- were also handed over to him. At the time of entering in the house of the complainant, he again demanded Rs.2,000/-. After "Shaptpadi" at the time of "Vidai" he again demanded Rs.3,000/-. On 12.7.1988 he demanded gold ring which was again gifted to him but at the time of marriage he demanded a scooter, but her parents were not in a position to give that, therefore, they assured him that at the time of second "Vidai" they will arrange the scooter. Only after getting such assurance, all the "Baratis" accepted food but even thereafter Respondent No.1 did not accept food and left the house and went to the lodge where the Barat was staying. All the other rituals were performed at Porwal Dharmshala but from Porwal Dharmshala against the tradition the respondent took the complainant with him on an auto rickshaw to Neelam Lodge, where he was staying. Again he demanded Fridg, Scooter, Cooler, Steel Almirah, Colour T.V. and Gold Chain and beat her as his demand was not complied with by her parents. On 13.7.1988 Satish Sharma, Shirish Sharma, Jaiprakash, Krishnamohan and several other persons stated that parents of the complainant have not given dowry, which even is being given in the marriage of a peon. After "Vidai" of "Barat" Respondent No.1 did not accompany the complainant. He went to the Berchha Station in a separate Tempo. When they were staying in Bhopal at the house of brother of Respondent No.1, where also he beat the complainant on account of non fulfilment of his demand of dowry. On 16.7.1988 when Jaiprakash, Rajendra, Mukesh, Satish and Premnarayan came to take her back as per tradition, behaviour of Respondent No.1 with them was not decent and he misbehaved with them and after getting his jewellery and beating her, he allowed her to go with them. Even after marriage he ill-treated and harassed her and subject her to cruelty as the dowry was not given in the marriage as per his demand.

Alleging that she was subjected to cruelty for non fulfilment of demand of dowry of Respondent No.1, the wife preferred a private complaint before the Court which was registered. Respondent No.1 was charged under Section 498A and 406 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent No.1 abjured the guilt and claimed for trial. After appreciation of evidence produced by the complainant, the learned trial court acquitted the accused from all the charges.

The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that judgment of the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on record. It has not appreciated the evidence of the complainant properly. The complainant did not take any action immediately since as per traditions of the Hindus a wife makes all possible efforts to save her marriage. The trial court has erred in disbelieving the statement of Sureshchandra and Dineshchandra. The statement of rickshaw puller Ashok Kumar (PW-7) has also been discarded on the wrong notions. PW-2 Dinesh Chandra Shrivastava, PW-3 Harishankar Sharma and PW-5 Sureshchandra Shrivastava have stated before the trial court regarding the conduct and behaviour of Respondent No.1 at the time of marriage and demand made by him at the several traditional rites. It was also revealed by the witnesses that at the time of engagement, Respondent No.1 demanded Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.15,000/- were given to him. This demand is rejected by the trial court only on the assumption that this was prior to marriage but as per the definition of constituting the offence, such demand comes within the purview of the crime. All the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant in respect of payment made to Respondent No.1, but the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused from the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial Court has considered that the allegations are exaggerated but this is against the facts of the case and the evidence produced by the complainant. The trial Court has wrongly appreciated and has drawn adverse inference for minor discrepancies and contradictions, which are natural due to human conduct and nature. The complainant as well as the witnesses have established that on several occasions, several articles and cash was given to Respondent No.1 as dowry and the same has never been returned by him to the complainant, even after their separation. Therefore, acquittal of Respondent No.1 is contrary to the law and facts. On all these grounds the appellant has prayed for reversal of the judgment and conviction of Respondent No.1.

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has rejected the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.

In view of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I have scanned the evidence produced by the prosecution and found that there are discrepancies, contradictions and omissions on material points in the statement of all the prime witnesses of the prosecution. Right from para 5 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has discussed them in detail.

It has been observed by the learned Trial Court that the complainant has admitted that conversation in respect of demand of dowry had never done before her. Contrary to her statement made in examination-in-chief, she has admitted in cross-examination that she does not know as to who had demanded Rs.20,000/- at the time of engagement or how the Rs.15,000/- allegedly demanded by the complainant were arranged or when gold ring was demanded and before whom it was demanded. She has stated that all such type talks were with her brother-Suresh Shrivastava (PW-5) and brother-in-law (Jija) Prem Narayan Shrivastava and she only came to know as there were some discussion in the family.

Suresh (PW-5) has stated that at the time of "Tika", he had gone Bhopal. The respondent was also called there by his brother Basant Kumar. Though he had gone Bhopal with all necessary arrangements, but for his surprise; the respondent demanded Rs.15,000/-. He was not having that much amount, therefore, borrowed the same from his Jija. The complainant has stated that her brother Suresh had told her that at the time of Tika, the respondent had demanded Rs.20,0000/- while Suresh himself has stated that the respondent had demanded Rs.15,000/-. Suresh has stated that he borrowed Rs.15,000/- from Prem Narayan, but Prem Narayan has not been examined by the complainant.

Suresh has further stated that Banshilal had demanded Rs.2,000/- at the time of welcome of Baraat, Rs.3,000/- at the time of Vidai and a scooter at the time of dinner of Baraat. In cross-examination, he has admitted that such demands were made through Satish, but Satish has stated that the money was demanded directly from Suresh. Presence of one Shyam Carpenter was also claimed by Suresh at the time of giving of Rs.2,000/-. Shyam has not stated anything in this respect. Satish has not stated anything in respect of demand of Rs.3,000/-. Dinesh has stated that Rs.3,000/- was not demanded at the time of "Phere" but it was demanded at the time of "Vidai". Suresh has stated that groom had demanded Rs.3,000/-. Shyamlal has stated that this demand was made by brother of the groom.

Complainant Vijaya and witnesses Satish and Dinesh have stated that, the accused had demanded gold ring and Suresh had given him 5 gm gold ring but Suresh has not stated anything in this respect.

The complainant has stated that after Vidai, her husband took her alone to the Neelam Lodge by an auto rickshaw, where he slapped her and demanded dowry. In the night and on next day also he beat her. On the next day, they reached Bhopal and stayed at the house of his brother. There also he (her husband) beat her and also collided her head with a box. He also misbehaved with her brother and other relatives, who had come to take her back as per ritual, but she did not reveal these facts before any one and no one else has stated that the accused misbehaved them. Evidence shows that the accused was not even present at home at that time.

Thus, there are contradictions as to who demanded dowry, from whom it was demanded, what was demanded and when it was demanded. Many material witnesses have not been examined by the complainant. Therefore, her allegations lack support.

The complainant stayed with the accused only for four-five days [11 (date of marriage) to 16 July 1988] and stayed at her matrimonial house only for three days (13 to 16 July). She came back home on 16th July and without approaching the police, served notice to her husband (accused) on 19. 07.1988 and thereafter filed the complaint before the Court. It is unbelievable that in such short span, the alleged incidents happened and even then the witnesses could not state them correctly before the Court.

Learned trial Court has considered all the contradictions and omissions in detail and has rightly concluded that the evidence produced by the prosecution falls short to make the charge home. I do not think it necessary to reiterate all those discussions here, specially when I do not find any fault with them. After proper appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has held that the complainant could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubts and the conclusions are supported by the evidence. I do not see any perversity in the conclusion or do not find any reason to differ from them.

Thus, the appeal is sans merits, deserves to be and is dismissed hereby.