M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel Sri Shivappa who represents the respondents-accused on merits. The allegation against the accused was that Al being the husband and A2 and A3 being the mother and senior uncle of A1 that they had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of the marriage of deceased, Mahadevi. On 1-6-1991, Mahadevi suffered serious burn injuries, she was taken to the K.R. Hospital, Mysore on 2-6-1991 and she died on 15-6-1991. On 3-6-1991 the police Head Constable is alleged to have recorded a dying declaration in which he has implicated the accused but that document suffers from a host of legal infirmities as a result of which the Trial Court itself rejected the same. In the absence of any cogent material the Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the 3 accused. It is this order that is assailed through the present appeal. Though we appreciate the strenuous efforts put in by the learned Counsel who represents the State whereby he has endeavored to convince the Court that the dying declaration ought to be accepted we are unable to do so. The form and the manner in which the dying declaration was recorded and more importantly the fact that there is absolutely no certificate on record that Mahadevi was in any condition to make a statement has created serious doubts in the mind of the Trial Court with regard to the validity of the dying declaration and in our considered view, interference with these findings would be erroneous. As far as the rest of the record is concerned, the quality of the evidence is extremely weak and inconclusive and consequently, we have no option except to confirm the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused by the Trial Court. We need to record further that there are clear overtones of the fact that deceased, Mahadevi was being ill-treated for purposes of securing additional dowry but the reason why the conviction has not been possible is because the Court is bound to observe the principle of criminal jurisprudence whereby the offence is required to be established beyond reasonable doubt and it is obviously by default that the accused have escaped a conviction. The reason why we mention this is because we propose to issue certain additional directions in this appeal which have not been done before by any Court.
2. After the conclusion of the argument we requested the two learned Counsels to do some research with regard to the decisions under the Dowry Prohibition Act. We drew their attention to Section 6 of the Act which clearly provides that the property or money that passes hands at the time of the marriage, though the Act defines it as dowry is required to go to the benefit of the woman and nobody else. That Act also prescribes for various situations whereby the property will have to be transferred back to the woman if she is alive or to her legal heirs if she is no longer alive. We do not approve of the default situation that is taking place in a large number of dowry death cases wherein, virtually nothing short of trading is occurring. What is happening is that bride burning and in any other horrifying forms of dowry deaths occur, the woman dies, the accused in the majority of cases are acquitted and, what the law describes as unjust enrichment accrues in favour of the accused persons. The end result of it is that the woman has lost her life and the husband's family are richer for the incident caused by default and merely because of the fact that the Court has not passed any consequential orders the accused have been acquitted, money and the property continues to remain with the husband or the husband's family. This is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. We had requested the learned Advocates to ascertain as to whether it would be justifiable even in a case where the accused are acquitted for the Court to issue appropriate directions with regard to the property that has passed hands under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Where the case has ended in a conviction there can be no difficulty but the learned Advocates inform us that this is an angle of the law which has not been considered by any of the Courts in this country and that consequently there is virtually no case-law under this head. That does appear to be the position because as indicated by us that aspect has virtually been overlooked. Regardless of that position we do not propose to allow this wrong practice to continue any further.
3. In our considered view, irrespective of whether the case ends in a conviction or not, under the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Courts and the Trial Courts are invested with appropriate powers to issue directions according to law with regard to the property which is the subject-matter of the offence. If the evidence discloses that a certain amount of money or property has changed hands at the time of the marriage or thereafter and that this would have to be construed as dowry, then Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act will clearly apply and it is within the powers of the Court to direct that this amount be restored either to the family of the deceased wife or to the legal heirs. In the present instance, the record indicates that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- did change hands and secondly, that the deceased, Mahadevi has left behind a young son. Accordingly, we direct the Trial Court to issue notice to accused 1 to 3 and to afford them a period of 3 months within which to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,000/- in the Trial Court. If there is default, the Trial Court shall take necessary coercive measures to recover the amount in question. Once the amount is recovered the Trial Court shall direct that the same be invested in a nationalised Bank having a branch close to where the accused reside as a FD renewable from time to time with interest accruing cumulatively until such time as the minor son attains majority. On his attaining majority the amount in question shall be paid over to him. It is made clear that the Bank shall be instructed that under no circumstances shall premature withdrawal be permitted nor shall the Bank permit any encumbrance of the amount or loans to be drawn against the same. The precaution which the Trial Court to take is to ensure that the legal guardians of the minor son are made aware of the invested amount so that necessary steps can be taken by them to instruct the minor to claim the amount when he attains majority.
4. With there directions, the appeal which fails to stand dismissed.Copy of this order to be transmitted to the Trial Court for due implementation of the directions.