LexAPPASAHEB AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D APPASAHEB AND ANR. v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA JANUARY 5, 2007 [G.P. MATHUR AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Section 304-B-Applicabi/i~cope of-Held: Demand of money for meeting domestic expenses or for purchasing manure nat demand for 'dowry' so as to attract section 304-B-Thus, essential ingredient of section 304-B, demand for dowry not established-Conviction of accused for causing harassment to wife in connection with demand of dowry leading to suicide by wife, not sustainable-Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-Section 2. Words and Phrases: 'Dowry '-Meaning of. in the context of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. According to the prosecution case, B-wife ended her life within two and a half years of marriage by consuming poison because of harassment caused to her by appellant no I-husband and appellant no 2-mother-in-law in connection with demand of dowry. Charges were framed under section E 498-A, section 304-B and section 306 read with section 34 IPC. Trial Court acquitted the appellants of charges under section 498-A and section 306 read with section 34 IPC but convicted and sentenced under section 304-B IPC. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. The two essential ingredients of section 304-B IPC, apart G from others, are (i) death of woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, and (ii) woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for "dowry". The explanation appended to sub-section (1) of section 304-B says that "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. [Para 9) [171-C) 1.2. In view of the definition of the word 'dowry' under section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act any property or valuable security should be given H or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time 164 APPASAHEBv. STATE 165 after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. A Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. (Para 9] (171-G, H, 172-A] 2.1. The main witnesses regarding the alleged demand of money and also harassment and beating to B are her father and mother. Accepting the statements of father and mother on their face value the utmost which can be held is that the appellant no.1 had asked his wife to bring money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. [Para 8] (170-D, 171-AJ 2.2. A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not show that any demand for 'dowry' as defined in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of section 304-B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. [Para 9] [172-B, C] Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd, AIR (1996) SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of India v. Union of India, AIR (1997) SC 558, relied on. B c D E F 3 The appellants were also charged under sections 498-A and 306 · read with Section 34 IPC but were acquitted ofthe said charges by Sessions G Judge, which order has attained finality for the reason that the State did not prefer appeal against the same. Appeal before the High Court and also in this Court has been preferred by appellants challenging their conviction under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, no opinion is expressed as to whether the appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.