State vs Sivasubramaniam

V. Bakthavatsalu, J.—The appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai in C.C. No. 83 of 1990 dated 27.3.1992. The charge against the accused is that on 27.11.89, the accused demanded five sovereigns of jewels and a scooter and a cash of Rs. 30,000/- as dowry and that therefore, he is liable to be punished u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The second charge against the accused is that on 28.11.1989 between 7.00 and 8.00 a.m. the accused ill-treated his wife namely, Saroja and that she was subjected to cruelty and that therefore, he is liable to be punished u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the above charges.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 15 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.O.1.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

P.W.1 is the daughter of P.W.2. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. The marriage between accused and P.W.1 was solemnized on 23.6.1989. Ex.P-1 is the marriage, invitation card. Before solemnization of the said marriage, there was betrothal in the house of P.W.2. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were present in the said ceremony. A demand was made by the accused asking for presentation of 15 sovereigns of jewels. P.W.2 the father of P.W. 1 at that time promised that he would present 10 sovereigns and that the remaining five sovereigns would be presented later. P.W.2 also agreed to present gold ring to the accused. P.W.2 also purchased articles worth about Rs. 30.000/- After the marriage, P.W.1 and accused lived together in Mathur Ramaswamypuram village in the house of the accused and after one month they came to Aranthangi. At that time P.W. 1 told her father P.W. 2 that her husband the accused was demanding five sovereigns of jewels, scooter and also a cash of Rs. 30000/- for going abroad and that she was also beaten by the accused. P.W.1 also wrote letter to P.W.2 miller Ex.P-2. The accused also told P.W.1 that if the required dowry amount was not presented, he would contract another marriage. Thereupon, a panchayat was convened to resolve the said dispute. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 8 mediated the matter in the panchayat. P.W.2 told the Panchayat that the accused was demanding scooter and Rs. 30,000/- from him and that his daughter was driven out from his house. The accused was also present in the said panchayat. The accused assured that he would amicably live with his wife and that he also sought apology for his past deed.

P.W. 11 was Postmaster at Arasurkulam. The accused and P.W.1 were residing at a distance of two houses away from his house. On one day, during night, he heard weeping voice of P.W. 1 and that when he enquired her, she told him that her husband demanded scooter and cash P.W. 12, who is resident of Aranthangi on one occasion enquired P.W.1 and he was told that her husband burnt her with cigarette and that she was unable to bear the cruelty.

On 28.11.1989 P.W. 1 was tied with the bureau by the accused and her mouth was closed with a cloth and then the accused left the house after locking the house. At about 7:00 p.m. the accused burnt her right knee with electric iron box. On 29.11.1989, the accused drove her to her parents house and at that time, she was pregnant.

P.W. 10 was trustee of Sivan temple, Thiruchitrambalam. In the year 1990 in the last week of January, he went to the temple at about 11:00 a.m. and at that time, he saw three male persons and two females emerging from the temple. When he enquired them, he was told that the above persons came to the temple to solemnize a marriage and the accused was also found there. When he enquired the accused, the accused told him that he came to the temple to solemnize the marriage with one Hemalatha and that he required the Village Administrative Officer certificate and as the temple maniam was not available the marriage could not be solemnized. But after sometime P.W. 10 saw the accused garlanding Hemalatha. Both Hemalatha and accused exchanged garlands at that time.

P.W. 1 unable to bear the cruelty inflicted by her husband lodged a complaint with Dowry Branch Police under Ex.P-4. P.W. 15 the Inspector received the above complaint and registered the case in Crime No. 85 of 1990 u/s 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2 and 4 of the Down Prohibition Act. Ex.P-6 is the first information report. Thereafter P.W. 1 was sent to the hospital for treatment.

P.W 14 the Doctor attached to Pudukkottai Government Hospital examined P.W.1 for the injuries sustained by her on 17.2.1990 at about 4.30 p.m. At the time of examination P.W. 14 the doctor saw a scar measuring 2 � 1/2 cm over the right knee. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate issued by P.W. 14.

P.W. 15 examined the witnesses and recorded the statement and on the same day i.e. 16.2.1990 he arrested the accused at about 8.00 p.m. and remanded him to judicial custody. After obtaining the wound certificate and examining the doctor, he completed the investigation and filed chargesheet on 31.5.1990.

The incriminating materials appearing against the accused were explained to him and the accused denied the evidence. No evidence was let in on behalf of the accused.

On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of all the charges holding that the charges levelled against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is against the said order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the State.

The learned Government Advocate raised the following contentions in this appeal:

The trial Court erred in stating that there was earlier complaint pending. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 15 would show that there was no earlier complaint against the accused. The reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the evidence of witnesses are not correct. The trial Court is not justified in rejecting the evidence on the sole ground that the document evidencing the articles of dowry negotiated and agreed to be presented at the time of betrothal was not produced. The finding of the trial Court are not based on evidence. The delay in preferring the complaint would not materially affect the case. The trial Court failed to consider the letter written by P.W. 1 to her parents. The evidence adduced by the prosecution would clearly establish that the accused is guilty both u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the respondent/accused repelling the above contentions raised by the learned Government Advocate contended that the entries in the note book alleged to have been written on the date of betrothal was not produced and that therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. It is further contended that in the complaint the word "Iron Box" is written in a different ink and that therefore, the complaint given by P.W.1 cannot be said to be genuine and that in the letter there is no allegation as to demand of dowry and that in Ex.P-6, the first information report the date is altered and that the evidence adduced in this case would not bring the offence either u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

The point for determination in this appeal is, whether the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt?

P.W.1 is the wife of the accused. There is no dispute that the marriage between P.W.1 and the accused was solemnized on 23.6.1989. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1 and wife of P.W.2. The prosecution has let in evidence to show that prior to the date of marriage, a betrothal function was held in the house of P.W.2 and that in the said function, it was agreed that 15 sovereigns of jewels should be presented besides one sovereign ring to the bridegroom and that it was also decided to give vessels worth about Rs. 30,000/-. P.W.2 the father of P.W. 1 has admitted the above facts in his evidence. The evidence of P.W. 1 that at the time of betrothal, there were negotiations for presenting jewels and vessels is corroborated by other evidence also. P.W.4 is closely related to P.W.1. P.W.1 is sister''s daughter of P.W.4. P.W.5 is father-in-law of P.W.2. P.Ws. 8 and 9 who were present at the betrothal function have also deposed that there was an agreement to present 15 sovereigns of jewels and vessels worth about Rs. 30.000/- and that P.W.2 promised to present 10 sovereigns of jewels on the date of the marriage and that he also assured that he would present five sovereigns of jewels after sometime. But the accused denied that he demanded 15 sovereigns of jewels and vessels worth about Rs. 30.000/- at the time of betrothal. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses on this aspect solely on the ground that the witnesses have admitted that the agreement for presenting jewels and other articles were entered in a notebook and that the said notebook was not produced by the prosecution.

It is no doubt true that P.W.4 has admitted that at the time of negotiations during betrothal function, an agreement for giving seer articles etc. would be reduced into writing. But he does not know whether the said agreement was written in the case of P.W. 1 But P.W.5 has admitted that the negotiations took place at the time of betrothal were written in a notebook and that P.W.2 was in possession of the said notebook and that the panchayatars have also signed in the notebook. P.W.2 has not stated that there is document to evidence the agreement for giving the dowry articles. P.W.7 has stated that he does not know whether the articles agreed to be given for the marriage are entered in the notebook. P.W.8 has stated that there is a practice to enter in the notebook about the articles agreed to be presented for the marriage. But, he would say that such a document was not written at the time of betrothal. But, P.W.9 has admitted that the bride party handed over the document to bridegroom party which contained the articles to be presented for the marriage. The trial Court places much reliance upon the said evidence. The trial Court has observed that P.W.2 has not produced the said notebook and that therefore, the evidence of witnesses, who are interested, cannot be believed. The trial Court has also observed that the witnesses have stated that the accused was present at the time of betrothal and that the bridegroom would not normally attend the betrothal function and that therefore, the evidence of witnesses that the bridegroom party demanded 15 sovereigns of jewels and a ring and a cash of Rs. 30.000/- cannot be accepted. It cannot be laid down as a universal rule that the bridegroom would not attend the betrothal ceremony. The question whether or not the bridegroom would attend the betrothal function would depend upon the custom of a particular community. Therefore, the trial Court cannot on mere surmise come to the conclusion that the bridegroom would not attend the betrothal ceremony and that therefore, the finding of Trial Court that the evidence of P.Ws. that the bridegroom party demanded jewels and cash from bride party is unbelievable, cannot be said to be sustainable.

On the other hand, there is ample and overwhelming oral evidence to show that the accused demanded jewels and cash from P.W.1 and her parents. There is also acceptable evidence to prove that skirmishes between accused and P.W.1 regarding the jewels and cash was also resolved in the panchayat P.W. 1 has stated mat after marriage they lived together for a month in the house of the accused at Mathur Ramasamypuram and that thereafter, they lived for sometime at Aranthangi and at that time, the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring the balance of jewels, scooter and also Rs. 30,000/- which he required for his travel to abroad. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded the above cash and jewels after the marriage. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that when she told the accused that her father was not in a position to provide the said articles, she was beaten with hands and that she revealed the same to P.W.2, her father and that a panchayat was also convened to resolve the said dispute. P.W.2 the father of P.W.1 has also admitted that a panchayat was convened. P. W.3 the mother of P. W. 1 has stated that her daughter P.W. 1 told her that the accused demanded cash of Rs. 30.000/- and five sovereigns of jewels.

To substantiate the above fact, the prosecution has also examined the panchayatars. P.W.4 has stated that a panchayat was convened in the house of P.W.2 and that the accused was also present in the said panchayat and that the accused tendered apology for his act and that he also assured that he would take back his wife. P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9 who were present in the panchayat have uniformly stated that they were told the accused demanded P.Ws. 1 and 2 to give cash of Rs. 30.000/- and a scooter and that P.W.1 was also subjected to cruelty with regard to the said demand and that in the panchayat the accused assured that he would not repeat the said mistake It is thus seen from the above evidence that after the marriage the accused demanded P.W.1 and her parents to present five sovereigns of jewels and scooter and cash of Rs. 30.000/-. The evidence of the above witnesses will also show that the accused who was present in the panchayat has assured that he would not repeat the said mistake in future. The evidence of the above witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they are related to P.W.1. But the trial Court has held that P.W. 4 is relation of P.W.2 and that P.W.5 is also a close relation of P.W.2 and that P.W.8 has stated that he does not know the date on which the panchayat was held and that therefore, their evidence cannot be believed. It is suggested to P.Ws. 1 and 2 by the accused that P.W. 1 was having intimacy with other persons and that P.W. 1 was having intimacy with one Ilamparathi. The above evidence is denied by P.W. 1. P.W.9 who was present in the panchayat has admitted that the said Ilamparathi is his son and that the accused has already represented that P.W.1 was having intimacy with Ilamparathi. But he would say that no panchayat was convened with regard to the said fact. P.W. 1 has also admitted that the accused issued notice to her stating that she was having illicit intimacy with one Naveneetham and that she also issued reply. But she has asserted in re-examination that the above exchange of notices took place after this case. She has also admitted that she filed a maintenance suit in the Court in O.P. No. 3 of 1990. It is not shown that prior to lodging complaint in this case, the accused issued notice to P.W.1 stating that she was having illicit intimacy with Ilamparathi and Naveenatham. The trial Court has stated that P.W.1 has not filed the above notice. As the accused has come forward with a version that P.W.1 was having illicit intimacy with other person, it is incumbent upon him to substantiate the same. Except a bald suggestion to witnesses there are no materials to show that P.W.1 was having illicit intimacy with other persons. In the above circumstances, the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted.

The finding of the trial Court that the witnesses are closely related to P.W. 1 and that therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted is patently untenable. There is no gain saying that in matrimonial cases, only the close relations of the aggrieved party would be the competent witnesses. The evidence of close relations cannot be discarded on the ground that they are interested persons of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

There is also acceptable documentary evidence to prove that the accused demanded dowry from P.W.1 and that she was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment. Ex.P-2 is the letter written by P.W. 1 to her parents dated 25.8.1989. In the first paragraph of the above letter, it is stated that she is well. In the second paragraph it is stated thus:

The above letter was written while P.W. 1 was living with the accused at Aranthangi. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused contended that there is nothing in Ex.P-2 to show that P.W. 1 was subjected to any cruelty by the accused. But the subsequent letter Ex.P3 written by P.W.1 would practically support the case of the prosecution that the accused not only demanded cash and scooter from P.W.1, but also she was subjected to cruelty. It is stated in the above letter thus:

The above letter is dated 25.10.89. Ex.P-4 is the complaint given by P.W. 1 to the police dated 16.2.90. It is seen that P.W. 1 wrote two letters to her parents four or five months prior to the date of the complaint. It cannot be said that the above letters were concocted for the purpose of this case. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 will clearly show that P.W. 1 wrote the above letters to P.W.2 her father while she was living with the accused at Aranthangi. The trial Court has held that in the letter Ex.P-2, P.W.1 has written that she was doing well and that if really the accused ill-treated P.W.1, she would have given complaint to the police immediately and that there is no reference to Ex.P-2 and P-3 in the complaint Ex.P-4. The trial Court was not prepared to accept the above letters. I am constrained to hold that the finding of the trial Court on the above aspect is perverse. The letters Exs.P-2 and P-3 are inland letters and the above letters also contained the post office seal. Therefore, the genuineness of the above letters cannot be disputed. The fact that there is no reference to Exs.P-2 and P-3 in Ex.P-4 will not show that P.W. 1 has come forward with a false version that she was subjected to cruelty. It has to be noted at this stage that normally entire fact relating to the dispute or intermittent skirmish, between husband and wife would not be stated, in the complaint. Further, the first information report need not contain the entire facts of the prosecution case. It is clearly stated in Ex.P-4 that the accused demanded P.W.1 to bring dowry and mat she was subjected to ill-treatment. In the above circumstances, the absence of any reference to Exs.P-2 and P-3 in Ex.P-4 will not show that the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 and others that the accused demanded scooter and cash is only an afterthought. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of witnesses with reference to the documentary evidence adduced in this case by the prosecution.

Regarding cruelty and ill-treatment, P.W.1 has stated that on 27 and 28th in the month of November, the accused tied her to the bureau and that her right knee was burnt with iron box by the accused. According to P.W. 1 the above incident took place on 28.11.1989. It is also stated in Ex.P-4 that the accused burnt her right knee with iron box. But it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that the word iron box was inserted in the complaint after scoring off some other sentence. It is seen that the word iron box occurred in Ex.P-4 appears to be inserted or written after scoring off another word, but the same word also contained in the first information report Ex.P-4. The same first information report reached the Court without undue delay. While writing the complaint, some other word would have been mentioned and the same would have been erased and in its place the word "iron box" would have been written. The correction and erosions which would normally occur while writing the complaint would not throw doubt upon the genuineness of the complaint. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the complaint Ex.P-4 was concocted after due deliberation with interested parties cannot be accepted.

It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that she also took treatment for the injuries sustained on the right knee and that on the date when she suffered burn injuries she was pregnant for six months. To substantiate the said fact, the prosecution has also examined the Doctor. P.W. 14. P.W. 14 examined P.W.1 on 17.2.1990 for the injuries sustained by her on 28.11.1989. The Doctor has stated that he has found a scar measuring 2 � 172 cm on the right knee. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate issued by P.W. 14. It is no doubt true that P.W.1 got treatment three months after the date of the incident. The trial Court has observed that if really P.W. 1 was subjected to cruelty and sustained any injuries, she would have gone to hospital and police station. It is worthwhile to note at this stage that the alleged ill-treatment and cruelty occurred within two or three months after the marriage. If any complaint was given against the husband by the wife within such a short period, it would certainly affect the future career of the wife. Therefore P.W. 1 would not think it fit to rush to the police station immediately after she sustained burn injuries on her right knee. There are no valid reasons to discard the evidence of P.W. 1 that she was beaten by her husband, the accused and that the accused burnt her right knee with iron box on one occasion.

It is contended by the respondent/accused that there is delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged cruelty and ill-treatment as per Ex.P-4 occurred on 27.11.89, 28.11.1989 and prior to that. But the complaint was lodged only on 16.2.1990. It is well settled that the delay in lodging complaint regarding matrimonial offence cannot be said to be fatal. As P.W. 1 is the wife of the accused and as the alleged cruelty and ill-treatment occurred within two or three months after the marriage, it would not have occurred to P.W. 1 to rush to the police station immediately to lodge the complaint.

The trial Court has observed that P.W.2 has spoken to an earlier complaint and that the same was not produced by the prosecution. P.W.3 has stated that she went to Dowry Prohibition Police twice or thrice and that the accused was brought there and examined and that thereafter, they obtained the complaint and that they obtained the signatures of panchayatars and her daughter. The above evidence of P.W.3 is vague. The above evidence will only show that on one occasion, the dowry prohibition police examined the panchayatars and P.W. 1. It may be true that prior to Ex.P-4 the matter would have been reported to the police and the police would have sent the parties by effecting some settlement. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed upon the vague evidence of P.W.3 to prove that the complaint was already lodged prior to Ex.P-4.

The prosecution has also let in evidence to show that the accused made arrangements to contract second marriage with one Hemalatha. P.W. 10 has stated that in the month of January 1990, at about 11:00 a.m. he went to the temple and that he saw the accused and other persons in the said temple and that when he enquired the accused, the accused told him that he intended to marry one Hemalatha and that he was unable to obtain the VAO certificate and that the temple maniam was not available in the village and that therefore, the marriage could not be solemnized and that after sometime he saw accused and Hemalatha exchanging garlands. The complaint was not lodged u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the evidence adduced on this aspect cannot be considered in this case.

The prosecution has also adduced evidence to prove that P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused. P.W. 12 has stated that P.W. 1 and accused used to quarrel often and that the accused used to beat P.W. 1 and that when he enquired P.W. 1, she told that the accused demanded Rs. 30,000/- jewels and motorbike. P.W. 12 has stated that he was residing at a distance of four houses away from the house where P.W.1 and accused were residing. Nothing worth mentioning is elicited from the cross examination to discredit this testimony. P.W. 13 has stated that he was residing in the house adjacent to the house of the accused at Aranthangi and that on one day, when he enquired P.W. 1 she told that the accused demanded cash, jewels and scooter and that she went along with her mother. P.W. 13 has no motive to depose any falsehood against the accused. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 will also show that when P.W.1 was residing with the accused at Aranthangi, she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused.

The evidence adduced by the prosecution will clinchingly show that the accused demanded scooter, cash of Rs. 30,000/- and five sovereigns of jewels after the marriage and the said fact is also proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Any demand made by the husband after the marriage has to be termed only as a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court has relied upon a decision reported in C. Veerudu and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1989 Cri.L.J. 52), (Andhra Pradesh) wherein it is held that to sustain conviction u/s 498(A) mens rea is an essential ingredient. The trial Court also relied upon a decision reported in Mandan Lal and others v. Amar Nath (1985 Cri.L.J. 118) (Delhi), wherein it is held that property given after marriage merely to save marriage from being broken is not down. The above reported decisions will not apply to facts of this case.

In Shobha Rani vs Madhukar Reddi (MR 1988 S.C. 121) , the Supreme Court has held that a new dimension has been given to the concept of cruelty u/s 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the above decision, it is held thus:

Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security would also constitute cruelty.

In the light of the principles of law laid down in the above decision, the contention contended that demand of dowry to save the life of spouse after the marriage is not a dowry demand cannot be accepted.

The trial Court places much reliance upon the fact that the notebook which contained the agreement between the parties is not produced. It is not clear from the evidence that P.W.2 was in possession of the notebook prior to the date of the alleged complaint. Even assuming that the agreement between the parties for giving and taking dowry is written in a notebook, the fact that the notebook was not produced would not affect the case. As the witnesses have uniformly stated that the accused demanded cash of Rs. 30,000/-, scooter and jewels after the marriage and as it is proved that the conduct of the accused was questioned in the panchayat, the non- production of the alleged notebook would not materially affect the case. Therefore, the reasons given by the trial Court on this aspect is not sustainable in law.

It is established from the evidence that when P.W.1 was living in the house at Aranthangi, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. It is also established that the accused demanded cash of Rs. 30,000/-, scooter and jewels and that he has also admitted in the panchayat that he would not repeat the mistake. It is also established that P.W. I wrote letters to her parents complaining of the cruelty inflicted on her by the accused. If all the facts are considered cumulatively, it would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the accused demanded dowry from P.W. 1 and her parents and that he also ill-treated P.W.1 while she was living with him at Aranthangi. Therefore I hold that the accused is guilty u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. As already stated, the findings of the trial Court are not based on proper appreciation of evidence. Though the Court would not normally interfere with the order of acquittal. I am constrained to hold that the finding of the trial Court are perverse and therefore, the decision rendered by the trial Court in acquitting the accused has to be set aside.

For the reasons stated above. I hold that the criminal appeal has to be allowed. I hold that the accused is found guilty u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Since, the offence defined u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code falls under the category of "warrant case", the accused has to be heard on question of sentence. Issue notice to the accused to appear on 6/10.

31-A. After the notice was issued for appearance of the accused, the accused did not appear. It was represented that the accused is employed in Malaysia, and even though, several adjournments were given for appearance of the accused, the accused did not turn up. Therefore, this Court issued NBW through Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs returned the warrant stating that the arrest involves the effect of extradition and that there is no treaty/arrangement between India and Malaysia regarding extradition and that therefore. NBW was returned to this Court. It is, thus, seen that all the efforts made by the Court to secure the accused were not successful. In the above circumstances, there is no other option except to pass final orders on the available materials.

The accused was convicted u/s 4 of Down Prohibition Act and u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. u/s 4 of Down Prohibition Act, the minimum imprisonment that can be awarded shall not be less than six months and with fine which may extend to Rs. 10.000/-. The proviso to the above section states that the court for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. u/s 498-A the accused is liable to the punished for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and with fine.

The offence as per the charge sheet took place on 27.11.89. The trial Court delivered judgment on 27.3.1992. It is thus, seen that the appeal is pending for about 10 year from the date of the offence. In the above circumstances. I feel it is just and proper to award one year imprisonment, each u/s 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also just and proper to sentence the accused to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The above sentence of one year has to run concurrently. But, after the date of the judgment of the trial Court and the date of the judgment of this Court, number of G.Os came into force granting remission. Though, judgment of this Court is delivered today, it is related back to the date of the judgment delivered by the trial Court. After the date of the judgment of the trial Court, G.O. No. 296 dt: 20.2.1993 came into force granting six months remission. Similarly, G.O. No. 205 dt: 23.2.1994 came into force. If the above two G.Os are taken into consideration, the sentence of one year is wiped out. But, the sentence of fine imposed on the accused cannot be wiped out under the above G.Os. I feel it is just and proper to direct the accused to deposit the above Rs. 10,000/- and the amount shall be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation.

In the result, the following order is passed:

The accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The sentence of one year is remitted as per the G.Os stated above. ''The sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded as fine shall be paid to P.W.1 as compensation, failing which the accused shall undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. On deposit of the amount in the trial Court, P.W. 1 is permitted to withdraw the amount on proper identity.