LexMODINSAB KASIMSAB KANCHAGAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) (2013] 2 S.C.R. 357 MODINSAB KASIMSAB KANCHAGAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2007) MARCH 11, 2013. [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOP.ADHAYA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: . A. B c ss. 304-B and 498-A - Demand from husband through wife (deceased) for repayment of society loan - Held: The demand was not in connection with dowry, therefore, provisions of s.304-B were not attracted and appellant- husband acquitted of the charge - But, there is clear evidence 0 establishing that deceased was subjected to harassment by her husband on account of her failure to meet the said unlawful demand - Therefore, conviction u/s 498-A is maintained - Appellant sentenced for the period already undergone, which is approximately 2 years. E Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: ss. 3, 4 and 6 read with s.5 (1), proviso - Accused- husband found guilty of demanding and receiving cash and gold - Conviction and six month sentence under each of the F three counts awarded by High Court, not interfered with. The appellant and his mother were prosecuted for committing offences punishable ulss 498-A and 304-B read with s.34 IPC as well as ulss 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The prosecution case was that at G the time of marriage of the appellant with the deceased, the accused demanded and were given Rs.1000/- cash and one tola of gold. Subsequently, the appellant harassed the deceased for more dowry of Rs.10,000/-. Rs.2000/- were paid and theS'lmily showed its inability to H 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R. A meet the balance demand of Rs.8000/-. When the deceased came to her mother, she once again asked for the balance amount of Rs.8000/- and within 15 days thereafter she committed suicide. The trial court acquitted both the accused, but the High Court convicted the B appellant of the offences charged. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court has recorded its findings to hold the appellant guilty of the charges on the basis C of evidence of PWs. 2,3,4,5,7 and 12. What appears to have been lost sight of by the High Court is that the demand of Rs.10,000/- was not towards dowry but for payment of a society loan. From the evidence of PW-3, the uncle of the deceased, it is clear that at the time of 0 marriage, there was no such demand and the amount of Rs.10,000/- demanded by the appellant through the deceased was for repayment of a society loan of the appellant and it had no connection with the marriage of the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, even if, there was demand of Rs.10,000/- by the appellant, it was not a E demand in connection with the dowry and the offence u/ s 3048 was not attracted. [para 5, 6 and 7] [362-F-G; 363- F; 364-H; 365-F] Appasaheb and Another v. State of Maharashtra 2007 F (1) SCR 164 = (2007) 9 sec 721 - relied on. 1.2. However, the appellant was liable for the offence u/s 498A IPC. The demand of Rs. 10,000/- towards the society loan made by the appellant may not be a demand in connection with dowry but is certainly an unlawful G demand for a property or valuable security and there is clear evidence of the prosecution to show that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the appellant on account of her failure to meet the aforesaid demand of Rs. 10,000/-. [para 8) [365-G; 366-A-B] H ' MODINSAB KASIMSAB KANCHAGAR v. STATE OF 359 KARNATAKA & ANR. 1.3. On a reading of the evidence of the prosecution A witnesses and in particular, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 12, it is evident that a sum of Rs. 1000/- in cash and one tola of gold in addition to other articles were given to the appellant at the time of marriage. Therefore, the said cash and articles have been given towards dowry. The High B Court has found that the appellant was guilty of the offences u/ss 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but has not considered the offences to be grave and has imposed punishments for only six months for each of the offences in accordance with the proviso to c sub-s. (1) of s.5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. [para 10] [366-E-F; 367-B-C] 1.4. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the '.'- appellant u/s 3048 IPC are set aside, but the conviction u/s 498A IPC and under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 D is maintained. The appellant is sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 498A IPC to the period already undergone, which is approximately two years. The sentence o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.