IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.841 OF 2013 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.626 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.841 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA CITY POLICE. .. APPELLANT (BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
1. SRI. YASHWANT SON OF CHANNASWAMY 23 YEARS 2. SRI. CHANNASWAMY SON OF LATE SANNATHIMMAIAH 61 YEARS 3. SMT. THAYAMMA WIFE OF CHANNASWAMY 46 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MARIGUDI ROAD DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR HOLENARASIPURA-573 211. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 377 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.05.2013 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN (INCHARGE OF HOLENARASIPURA FTC) IN SESSIONS CASE NO.29 OF 2012 AND IMPOSE ADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.626 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. YESHWANTH SON OF CHANNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 2. SRI. CHANNASWAMY SON OF LATE SANNATHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SMT. THAYAMMA WIFE OF CHANNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MARIGUDI ROAD DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.G. NAMITHA MAHESH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2013 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT-II, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN (CONCURRENT CHARGE OF HOLENARASIPURA) IN SESSIONS CASE NO.29 OF 2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.09.2019 COMING ON THIS DAY, H.P. SANDESH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.626 of 2013 is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction dated 15.05.2013 and Criminal Appeal No.841 of 2013 is filed by the State challenging the inadequate sentence dated 15.05.2013 passed in S.C.No.29 of 2012 by the Fast Track Court-II and Sessions Judge, Hassan (Concurrent charge Fast Track Court-Holenarasipura) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Brief facts of the case:
It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased Chaitra was solemnized with accused No.1 Yeshwanth on 06.09.2010. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.30,000/- was paid and also 30 grams of gold jewelry was given to the accused. After 4-5 months of the marriage, the accused with a common intention, started demanding more dowry and subjected the deceased to mental and physical torture. Being unable to bear the harassment meted out, the deceased committed suicide on 12.09.2011 by hanging herself in the house of the accused by using veil. Based on the complaint lodged by the father of deceased, Police have registered the case against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Investigating officer has conducted the spot mahazar, inquest through the Tahasildar and the body was also subjected for post mortem examination and also the reports were obtained. He also recorded the evidence of witnesses and recovery was also made. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The accused persons were secured and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The accused did not plead guilty and claims trial. Hence, the prosecution, to substantiate its case examined P.Ws.1 to 26 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 23 and also got marked M.Os.1 to 4. The accused persons did not choose to lead any evidence but confronted the documents Exs.D.1 and 2. The accused persons were subjected to 313 statement.
5. The Court below, after hearing the arguments of the prosecution as well as the defense counsel, passed the judgment of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and awarded sentence.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and inadequate sentence, present two appeals are filed.
7. In Crl.A.No.626/2013, the accused contended that the Court below has committed an error in convicting the accused persons since the prosecution witnesses have no where stated with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry and also not given any specific instances of subjecting the deceased for harassment.
P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted in the cross-examination that the marriage of accused No.1 and the deceased was a love marriage as such, the question of demanding dowry does not arise at all but the Court below has committed an error in considering the said aspect. It is further contended that when deceased eloped with accused No.1, complaint was given and the matter was settled in police station. Even the witnesses do not make any allegations regarding demand of dowry and also its acceptance.
8. The evidence of P.W.3 goes to show that Rs.20,000/- was given to the accused persons and he also does not speak anything about the demand of dowry. Similarly P.W.4 also did not speak anything about the demand of dowry. P.W.5 is none other than the younger sister of C.W.1 and she is the signatory to inquest mahazar Ex.P.5. P.W.7 is none other the younger brother of C.W.1 and he only says that Rs.30,000/- cash and 30 grams of gold was given to accused persons but he has not stated specifically to whom it was given.
9. The evidence of P.W.8 is also similar to the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.12 who is a pawn broker states that Ex.P.8-receipt was given by him and he deposes that accused No.1 had pledged the gold ear rings. It is not the case of the prosecution that the death has taken place due to pledging of ear rings. It is settled that prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In the absence of credible evidence, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused persons.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused persons would contend that none of the witnesses have spoken anything about the demand of dowry and its acceptance and the witnesses who have been examined before the Court below are interested witnesses and relative witnesses. The prosecution has not proved the demand of dowry and its acceptance and also subsequent additional demand. The evidence discloses that both the accused No.1 and the deceased lived happily and accused Nos.2 and 3 have also not subjected the deceased for any harassment. In the absence of convincing and consisting evidence, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused persons. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
11. In the appeal filed by the State, it is contended that the Court below has committed an error in sentencing the accused persons not commensurate with the offences for which they have been convicted. The trial Judge has failed to see that there are no mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser sentence on the accused. The Trial Court ought to have imposed adequate and proper sentences on the accused persons. In the instant case, prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that since the deceased was unable to bear the torture, she took the extreme step of putting an end to her life. When the Court below convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code ought to have imposed the life imprisonment since the same is provided under law, but the same has not been done.
12. The Court below has also failed to see that it is mandatory to impose imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thus, has committed an error in imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- only. It is well settled law that fine equivalent to the dowry amount paid should be imposed on the accused.
13. The Court below, without any justification has taken a very lenient view while imposing sentence on the accused and the Apex Court has held that the sentence imposed for the offence should act as a deterrent and should send right signal to the Society that too in an offence against women but the same has not been considered. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
14. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the Court below fails to take note of the fact that the death had taken place within one year of the marriage and there is no dispute that it was a love marriage and witnesses have spoken with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry and the death has occurred in the matrimonial house. P.Ws.1, 2, 26, 5 and 7, though they are relatives have spoken with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry and harassment. The other witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are independent witnesses and they have also supported the case of the prosecution.
15. P.W.12, who is the jewelry shop owner deposed with regard to pledging of ear rings and the recovery was substantiated through the evidence of P.Ws.15 and 16, but the Court below has failed to take all these factors into consideration and has taken a lenient view while sentencing the accused persons. Hence, prayed this Court to enhance the sentence.
16. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also submits that instead of imposing mandatory fine of Rs.15,000/-, only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the fine imposed for other offences is also very meager. Hence, the fine imposed by the Trial Court is to be enhanced for all the offences.
17. Having heard the argument of appellants counsels in both the appeals and on perusal of both the oral and documentary evidence, this Court has to re-appreciate the evidence on record.
18. On re-appreciating the same, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:-
1. Whether the Court below has committed an error in convicting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and it requires interference of this Court?
2. Whether the Court below has committed an error in imposing inadequate sentence for the offences for which the accused persons have been convicted and it requires interference to impose appropriate sentence?
3. What order ?
19. Point No.1:- The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons have demanded the dowry and accepted the same. Even after the marriage also, the accused persons have subjected the deceased for harassment, as a result, she took extreme step to commit suicide since she was unable to bear the torture.
20. Keeping in view the contentions urged by both learned counsel appearing for the accused and High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, let us discuss the materials available before this Court. Before appreciating the evidence, we would like to refer to the judgment quoted by the accused counsel in the case of BAIJNATH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2017)1 SCC 101. Learned counsel has brought to our notice para No.30 of the judgment, which reads as follows:-
“30. A conjoint reading of these three provisions, thus predicate the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.”
21. Keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also the contentions urged, this Court has to reappreciate the evidence available on record both oral and documentary. First, we would like to consider the contents of the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1 and also Ex.P.15 FIR, which is issued based on Ex.P.1.
22. The complainant is the father, who has been examined as P.W.1 states in his evidence that the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1 is love marriage, but the accused persons have demanded and accepted dowry of Rs.30,000/- as cash and 30 grams of gold ornaments. The accused persons subjected her for harassment to bring additional dowry, as such, the deceased complained about the same to them. Hence, he along with P.W.2 and his brother went to the house of the accused and told them not to harass his daughter and sought some time to pay the amount. He consoled his daughter and requested the accused persons not to harass her, but she was subjected to harassment. On 12.09.2011, at about 4:30 p.m. his daughter committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of the accused and hence, he lodged the complaint. The complaint was given on the same day in the mid night at 12’ Clock and the case was registered.
23. P.W.1, who is the complainant and father of the deceased reiterates the contents of the complaint in his evidence. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that both of them fell in love and they were together. Accused No.1 himself brought her to police station when the missing complaint was given by his wife on the earlier occasion. At the time of marriage talk, their daughter was in their house. The marriage talk was held in the presence of both the families after 1½ month of the earlier incident. When they came to know about the death of their daughter, accused persons were not there in the house. He cannot tell the contents of the complaint since the same was written by his brother. The Tahsildar came and held the inquest.
24. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. She also reiterates only with regard to the payment of dowry amount and ornaments. She claims that the amount was given to accused No.2 and the Senior uncle of accused No.1. In the cross-examination, it is also elicited that both the deceased and accused No.1 fell in love and they insisted to perform the marriage. Hence, they performed the marriage. Therefore, within 10 to 20 days, the marriage was performed.
25. P.W.3, in his evidence says that the marriage talks were held and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to accused No.2, but they told that they have already settled regarding giving and taking. It is further deposed that they took responsibility to perform the marriage. In the cross examination, the defense themselves got elicited that the amount was given in the presence of C.Ws.1 and 2 to accused No.2 and his brother. P.W.4 also reiterates the same. In the cross-examination, it is also elicited that the amount was given to accused No.2 and his brother prior to 3 days of the marriage. P.W.5 speaks with regard to conducting of inquest and also claims that when deceased used to visit her house, she used to tell her that accused persons were subjected her to harassment. In the cross-examination, it was suggested that she did not make such statement before the Tahasildar that they had taken the responsibility to perform the marriage and the same was denied.
26. P.W.6, in her evidence states that the accused persons have threatened the deceased to get the dowry amount before their arrival from Bengaluru or otherwise to commit suicide or to leave the house. The same was informed to the witness and she consoled her stating that she would come and speak to them and went to attend agricultural work. Before her return from the work, she came to know that she has committed suicide. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.6 about the dowry harassment and demand.
27. P.W.7 is the uncle of the deceased and he also speaks about the demand and acceptance of dowry and also with regard to the additional demand of dowry. They went and advised the deceased as well as accused persons 4 to 5 times. In the cross examination, defense counsel elicited that accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the Senior uncle of accused No.1 demanded dowry. At that time, accused No.1 was also present. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was given on the date of marriage talk and balance of Rs.10,000/- was given 10 days prior to the marriage. It is elicited in his evidence that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were not allowing accused No.1 to lead marital life with the deceased.
28. P.W.8 also speaks with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited for having demanded and accepted the dowry amount. However, it is elicited that he did not make any statement before the Tahasildar with regard to payment of the amount and gold ornaments.
29. P.W.9 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and he also reiterates with regard to the payment of dowry and gold ornaments, but in the cross-examination, he admits that he was not present when the amount was given to the accused, but he claims that the marriage talks were held in the park. The other witness P.W.10 is only the hearsay witness. P.W.12 is the owner of Jewelry shop, he says that on 18.07.2011, accused No.1 pledged the ear rings of the deceased for an amount of Rs.1500/-. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that prior to the said transaction, accused No.1 had no other transaction with him. P.Ws.15 and 16 are the witnesses for drawing the mahazar in terms of Ex.P.10 and also seizure of Ex.P.8-bill and the recovery was made at the instance of these two witnesses. In the cross-examination of P.Ws.15 and 16, nothing has been elicited with regard to the fact that they were not present at the time of drawing the mahazar.
P.W.16 says that they were sitting in the jeep. P.W.15 says that the police have verified the register and also claims that he has signed the mahazar in the police station. P.W.20, the lady police constable arrested both accused Nos.2 and 3 and produced them before the concerned Investigating Officer. P.W.21 receives the complaint and registered the FIR. He speaks about the arresting of accused No.1. P.W.22 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem of the deceased has deposed that the cause of death is of asphyxia due to hanging.
30. P.W.25-Dy.S.P, who conducted further investigation into the matter, went to the spot and secured Tahasildar. Inquest mahazar was drawn through the Tahasildar and the body was also subjected to post mortem examination. Thereafter, the accused persons were apprehended and accused No.1 led the panch witnesses to pawn broker shop and seized the ear rings and completed all formalities. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that it had come to his knowledge that it was a love marriage. It is also elicited with regard to the arrest of accused No.3 and the persons who have been arrested have not given their passports and the same has also not been produced. It is suggested during the course of investigation, some of the witnesses have deposed that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not allowing accused No.1 to lead marital life with the deceased and he admits the same and it was suggested that deceased was too young and hence, accused Nos.2 and 3 were not allowing accused No.1 to lead the marital life with the deceased and the same was denied.
31. P.W.26-a minor, who is the sister of the deceased states that on the date of her sister’s death, she came to her house at 12.00 noon and enquired about the parents. She replied that they went to town and at that time, she revealed the accused persons have threatened her to bring gold and additional dowry amount or otherwise to commit suicide. Accused Nos.2 and 3 went to Bengaluru and accused No.1 also went outside by insisting her to bring the dowry amount and gold ornaments or otherwise to die. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that she made the above statement before the police and also elicited that accused No.1 and deceased were loving each other. It is suggested that the deceased did not tell anything prior to her death and the same was denied.
32. Let us consider the material available on record and evidence of P.W.1–father of the deceased and P.W.2–mother of the deceased, P.W.5-sister of P.W.1, P.W.26–minor sister of the deceased. P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 have deposed particularly with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry and also additional demand of dowry and subjecting her for harassment. In the cross- examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited with regard to the demand of dowry amount and gold ornaments prior to the marriage but it has been elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2 that both deceased and accused No.1 were fell in love and thereafter, the marriage was performed. It is the specific case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that accused No.2 and his brother have received the dowry amount and P.W.2 also deposed that the amount was given to them.
33. P.W.5 states that the deceased came and told about the harassment meted out to her subsequent to the marriage and nothing has been elicited in the cross-
examination of P.W.5 with regard to the harassment. It is pertinent to note that in the evidence of P.W.26-a minor sister of the deceased, has categorically deposed that on the date of committing suicide by the deceased, the deceased had come to her house and she also enquired about the parents. She replied that both of them went to town and the deceased revealed that accused persons have threatened her to bring additional dowry and gold ornaments and if she does not bring the same to commit suicide by hanging herself and further, she says that accused No.1 also told her to commit suicide if she does not bring the dowry amount. But in the cross-examination of P.W.26, except eliciting that accused No.1 and deceased were loving each other nothing has been elicited with regard to evidence of demand of dowry by the accused persons and subjecting her for harassment. No fruitful cross-examination has been done in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 26 regarding the demand and acceptance of dowry and also subjecting her for harassment.
34. Apart from the evidence of above stated witnesses, P.Ws.4 and 5 are the witnesses who states that the parents of the deceased gave Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2 and Senior uncle of accused No.1. It has been elicited from the cross-examination that the amount was given in the house of complainant to accused No.2 and his brother and so also in the cross-examination of P.W.5. In the cross examination of P.W.6, she reiterates the evidence of P.W.26 about the harassment given to the deceased by the accused persons and no cross-examination was made to P.W.6 with regard to harassment and even suggestion was also not made.
35. The other witness P.W.7 reiterates that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not allowing the deceased to live with accused No.1 happily. No doubt P.W.9 states in his evidence that amount and gold was given to the accused persons. But he categorically admits that when the amount was given, he was not present and also he did not make any statement.
36. The other circumstances discloses with regard to pledging of gold articles of the deceased i.e., ear rings with P.W.12 on 18.7.2011 just prior to two months of the deceased committing suicide. Evidence of P.Ws.15 and 16 corroborates the seizure of the ear rings of the deceased from the shop of P.W.12. There is no dispute with regard to the cause of death that the death is due to asphyxia by hanging and the same is corroborating with the evidence of the Doctor who has been examined as P.W.22.
37. Having considered the materials available on record, evidence of the prosecution has not been controverted by the accused counsel during his cross- examination and P.W.25-Dy.S.P. had conducted further investigation and reiterates the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Tahsildar who had conducted inquest has been examined as P.W.23 and he also reiterates conducting of the inquest at the request of the Investigating Officer. The prosecution was able to prove the demand and acceptance of dowry and also the demand of additional dowry and subjecting her for harassment.
38. We have already pointed out that the defense itself has suggested during the cross-examination that the deceased was very young and hence she was not allowed to lead the marital life happily with accused No1. The independent witnesses P.Ws.3, 4, 8 and 9 have supported the case of the prosecution and so also the relatives and neighbours were also examined i.e., P.Ws.1, 2, 26, 5 to 7 and also spoken about the demand and acceptance of dowry and also subjecting the deceased for harassment.
39. The very contention of the accused counsel that the prosecution has not proved the dowry payment and harassment cannot be accepted. It is also important to note that the death has taken place within a span of one year of the marriage. The specific evidence of the witnesses are that when they started demanding for additional dowry, they went and consoled the deceased and advised accused Nos.1 to 3 not to harass the deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence has deposed that he sought for some time to give the amount, but their efforts became futile and his daughter took extreme step to commit suicide. Though the submission is made by the accused counsel that the prosecution has not made out the case and the judgment relied upon by the counsel reported in (2017) 1 SCC 101 referred supra, the Apex Court held that the burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to avail the presumption engrafted in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the persons charged is thus the sine qua non to inspire the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused would get the benefit of doubt.
40. There is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment but in the case on hand, the evidence of prosecution witnesses both relative witnesses and also the independent witnesses is very cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence and prosecution has demonstrated the same by relying upon both oral and documentary evidence and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses while rebutting the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the death has occurred in the matrimonial house. The 313 statement of the accused persons are also general in nature and no explanation was offered as to why the deceased has committed suicide in the house of the accused that too within one year of the marriage. No doubt both accused No.1 and deceased fell in love and the witnesses, who have been examined have stated about the subsequent development and the marriage talks held in the house of father of the deceased. All the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with regard to demand and acceptance of dowry and also the additional demand of dowry. When such being the case, we do not find any reasons to find fault with the Court below in not considering the evidence available on record. The Court below has given anxious consideration to the evidence available on record both the relative witnesses and also the independent witnesses who have been examined before the Court. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court to reverse the findings and to set aside the judgment of conviction as I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
41. Point No.2: - The main contention of the State is that the sentences imposed by the Trial Court is inadequate and for an offence under Section 304-B, only 7 years imprisonment was imposed but the proviso envisages the life imprisonment. The Court below having taken note of the material available on record with regard to the demand and acceptance of dowry and also taking note of the fact that it was a love marriage, it has rightly imposed the sentence of 7 years imprisonment. There are no any aggravative circumstances to impose more sentence. The very contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that there was no any mitigating circumstances to impose the lesser punishment cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that while imposing the sentence, the Court has to take note of the manner in which the incident has taken place and whether there was any proximity to the cause of death and also any aggravative circumstances which led her to take a decision to commit suicide. Hence, we do not find any reasons to enhance the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code.
42. The other contention of learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State is that only a fine amount of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed as against the minimum fine amount of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is a force in such contention. The minimum fine amount to be imposed for such offence is Rs.15,000/- but the Court below has committed an error in imposing Rs.5,000/- as against the same and hence, the same requires to be interfered.
43. The further contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also, a lesser fine amount of Rs.2,000/- was imposed and it is further contended that the Trial Court ought to have taken note of the quantum of dowry which was paid while imposing the fine amount. On perusal of the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, a fine amount of Rs.1000/- was imposed. It appears that the fine imposed by the Court below both under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act also requires to be modified.
In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:-
ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No.626 of 2013 filed by the accused is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.841 of 2013 filed by the State is partly allowed.
(iii) The fine amount imposed for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- each as against Rs.5,000/-.
(iv) The fine amount imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code for Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each and the fine amount imposed for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each as against Rs.2,000/-.
(v) Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.60,000/- is payable to P.W.1- father of the deceased. The remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- shall vests with the Government. In case of default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of another two months for each offence.
(vi) The conviction and sentence for the offences is confirmed except the fine altered in the respective offences.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE PYR