LexS. GOPAL REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S. GOPAL REDDY A v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH JULY 11, 1996 [DR. AS. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B Criminal Law : Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 : Sections 2 and 4-Scope of-Held: Covers the demand of dow1y as a C consideration for a proposed 1naniage-- 1'Maniage 11 includes proposed n1ar- 1iage which has still to take place-Ihe peculiar definition of dow1y in the Act specifically covers the "demand" made "before" maniage. Sections 3 and 4-Scope of-Held: 17ie court should deal wilh a case under the Act in a realistic manner so as to fwther the object of the D legfrlation-17te Act being a penal statute, cowt should be watchful to see that suspicion or sunnise or conjectures are not allowed to influence its ju dg1nent-At the same tin1e it cannot acquit an accused 1nerely on the basis of technicalities or niinor discrepancies in evidence-Interpretation of Statutes. Constitution of India 1950: Article 136. Climinal appeal-Findings of foci-Recorded by courts below-Inter- ference with-By Supreme Cowt--Held : Supreme Court does not nonnally inte1fere with such findings of fact unless there is a gross miscaniage of justice. Evidence Act, 1872: Section 114 lll. (g}-Non-production of vital lette1-By the Prosecu- tion-Held adverse presunzption is to be drawn fro1n such non-production. E F Section 45-Expert evidence-Nature of-Held: Is a weak type of G evidence and cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent and reliable corroboration. Sections 45, 67 and 73-Document-Execution-Proof of-Modes of Opinion of witnesses and handw1iting expert in sudz circ1unstances-Relevan- cy of-Explained. H 439 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Inte1pretation of Statutes : Extemal aid;-Dictionade;-He/d: ft'here definition of a w01d is given in a statute itself it is neither proper nor desirable to look to the dictiona1y n1eaning. B Purposive construction-Held : The carat nutst look to the object, c which the statute seeks to achieFe while intc1preting any provision of the Act. f.Vords and Phrases : ''Dovv1y'~ "En.de!' and "Bn"degroon1 1'-A1eaning of-In the co/l/exr of Sections 2 and 4 of the Dow1y Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellant along "ith his brother was convicted for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In appeal, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge held that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out and set aside their conviction and sentence for the said offence \\'hile D confirming their conviction and !'ientence for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. Both the convicts unsuccessfully invoked the revisional juris~ diction of the High Court. This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant's brother. The appellant, against the High Court order pertaining to him, tiled the present appeal. E According to the prosecution during the negotiation of the marriage proposal of the appellant-first accused, an JPS Officer, "1th V, daughter of PW-1, a lawyer, the appellant's elder brother, the second accused, had demanded a house, jewels, cash and clothes worth about Rs. 1 lakh and a sum of Rs. 50,000 in cash for purchase of a car. However, the second F accused, on being approached by PW-1 for fixing the date of marriage, demanded Rs. 1 lakh instead for Rs. 50,000 for purchase of the car and also insisted that the said amount be paid before marriage. While the dowry talks remained inconclusive; the date of marriage \Vas fixed. In the meantime it was alleged that the appellant had written a letter to V asking her to cancel the marriage or to fullil the demands made by his elders. G PW-1 told the first accused about the additional dernand made by his elder brother for purchase of the car. The appellant told PW-1 that he would consult his brother and inform him about it and left for his native village, it was alleged that on his return from the village, the first accused asked PW-1 to give Rs. 75,000 instead of Rs. 50,11011 as agreed upon earlier as H against Rs. 1 lakh as demanded by the second accused. According to the S.G. REDDY v. STA1TI 441 prosecution case this talk took place in presence of one N (\\·ho was not A examined) the First accused suggested that PW-1 should b>ive Rs. 50,000 immediately towards the purchase of the car and the balance of Rs. 25,000 should be paid with one year aftet· the marriage hut PW-1 did not accept the sugge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.