2008 (1) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceased and represented by his daughter i.e. respondent No.2 in the present appeal. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: A complaint was filed by the aforesaid Kurra Ram alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') by Jaswant-son in law and husband of his daughter-Saroj, Ran Singh and Raj Bala, the present appellants who were father and mother of Jaswant and two others namely, Jai Singh and Suman, the brother and married sister of Jaswant. It was stated in the complaint that Saroj got married to Jaswant on 14.4.1994 and that she was harassed for dowry by the aforesaid accused persons. Learned Additional Chief Judic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his son Rajesh appeared as PW-2 and Saroj as PW-3. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court failed to notice that some customary articles were given to relatives of the bridegroom. That cannot be covered by the expression 'dowry'. High Court noticed the fact that the complainant tried to rope even a married sister who was living far away and the brother, which shows the tendency to falsely implicate them. Reference is also made to the following observations of the High Court: "..They are close relatives but the fact remains that an effort is made by the complainant to implicate as many persons as possible, in such matters." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and the complainant subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by the expression "dowry". (See Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001 (8) SCC 633)) . 8. The High Court has fallen in grave error while observing that present appellants "could misappropriate" and "who can practice cruelty". The conclusions to say the least are presumptuous. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by a w....