1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties.
2. By the present Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicants (original accused), they have questioned correctness and legality of the framing of charge against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, on 4-12-2004, for the offence punishable under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code [For short, "IPC"], alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, and also challenged the order dated 5-7-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, rejecting the application for discharge under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC preferred by them.
3. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present Application is as follows:
FIR came to be lodged by one Tatyarao Babaji Jadhav i.e. original complainant, on 21-9-2002, against the applicants with Police Station, Omerga. It was alleged therein that his daughter, namely, Anjali married with applicant no.2 herein, namely, Sanjay, on 17-3-2002, and after initial cordial treatment for one month, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicants due to non-fulfillment of unlawful demands by her made by them. It is also alleged that whenever she used to visit her parental home, she used to tell harassment meted out to her by the applicants and the said illtreatment was on account of demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle. Ultimately, she committed suicide on 21st September 2002 at about 1.00 p.m. by hanging herself. Accordingly, the original complainant Tatyarao Babaji Jadhav lodged complaint which was registered under CR No. 164/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and copy of FIR is annexed herewith at Exhibit "A".
4. Pursuant to the said complaint, applicants were arrested on the same day i.e. on 21st September 2002. Accordingly, after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the applicants on 31st December 2002, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is annexed herewith at Exhibit "B". However, it is the grievance of the applicants that although charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, framed charge against the applicants on 4-12-2004, not only for the aforesaid offences but also for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, and copy of the said charge is annexed herewith at Exhibit "C".
5. Hence, the applicants preferred an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, below Exhibit 21, before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, on 10-3-2010 and prayed that the charge under Section 304B, read with Section 34 of IPC, be deleted and the applicants be discharged therefrom. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, rejected the said application on 5-7-2012, and copy of the said application and order are annexed herewith at Exhibits "D" and "E", respectively.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the framing of charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, and alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, and also rejection of the application for discharge thereunder, by order dated 5-7-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, the applicants have preferred the present Criminal Revision Application assailing the legality and correctness thereof.
7. Adv. Mr. V.D. Sapkal appearing for the applicants canvassed that the complaint filed by the complainant on 21st September 2002 (Exhibit "B"), nowhere discloses that the alleged demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle by the applicants herein come under the purview of definition of 'dowry' under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and amendments thereto. It is also submitted that the alleged demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle, by the applicants, cannot be construed as valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with marriage of the parties, and therefore, it is submitted that the very complaint lacks ingredients of Section 304B of IPC, and therefore, charge under the said section could not have been framed against the applicants and hence, applicants deserve to be discharged therefrom. It is also argued by the learned Advocate for the applicants that even after lodging complaint by the complainant on 21-9-2002 with Police Station, Omerga (Page 25 of the petition), CR was registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 34 of IPC, and not under Section 304B of IPC. He also asserted that even after investigation, the investigating agency has filed the charge sheet against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 34 of IPC, and not under Section 304B of IPC (Exhibit "B", page 21 of the petition). However, inspite of the said position, still the learned trial court proceeded to frame the charge against the applicants not only under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 34 of IPC, but also for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, without any reasonable cause therefor.
8. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants strenuously submitted that the contents of complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC and alleged demand by the applicants in respect of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle does not come under the ambit of 'any demand for dowry' under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and consequently, the alleged cruelty or harassment at the hands of the applicants to the victim cannot be construed for or in connection with the demand of dowry, and accordingly, he further canvassed that upon consideration of record of the case and documents submitted therewith, there is no sufficient ground / material for proceeding against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, and hence they deserve to be discharged therefrom.
9. To substantiate his contentions, learned Advocate for the applicants has relied upon following judicial pronouncements:
(a) Judgment of Apex Court in the case of HarjitSingh Vs. State of Punjab, reported at AIR 2006 SC 680, wherein it was held thus:
"Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third is 'at any time' after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be an unending period. But the crucial words are 'in connection with the marriage of the said parties'. This means that giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security on any of the above three stages should have been in connection with the marriage of the parties. There can be many other instances for payment of money or giving property as between the spouses. For example, some customary payments in connection with birth of a child or other ceremonies are prevalent in different societies. Such payments are not enveloped within the ambit of 'dowry'. Hence the dowry mentioned in Section 304-B should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. "
(b) Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Appasaheband another Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at AIR 2007 SC 763(1), wherein considering definition of 'dowry' under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Apex Court has held thus:
"In view of the aforesaid definition of the word "dowry" any property or valuable security should be given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the giving or taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed. Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India. It is well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed with reference to a particular trade, business or transaction and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction knows or understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning (See Union of India vs. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 3509, and Chemicals and Fibres of India vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 558). A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304B IPC viz. demand for dowry is not established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained."
10. Learned Advocate for the applicants further submitted that these very aspects can be seen at the time of framing of the charge / while considering the application for discharge and for that purpose, he has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of Anita Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at 1997 (3) Supreme 651, wherein Apex Court has observed thus:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the standing counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh. We have very carefully perused the record and on such perusal, we are of the considered view that the materials appearing thereon is not sufficient for proceeding against these appellants for the charge framed against them under Section 304-B, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, these three appellants, namely, Anita w/o. Vasudev Vathwani, Usha w/o. Gopal Vachwani and Meera w/o. Ramesh Bajaj shall stand discharged. "
Accordingly, learned Advocate for the applicants urged that framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 304B, and alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, against the applicants, will amount to miscarriage of justice, since there is no sufficient ground / material against the applicants in that respect and, therefore, prayed that the present Application be allowed for the prayers as set out therein.
11. Learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonawane for the respondent / State, assisted by Adv. Mr. U.B. Bondar for the original complainant, countered the said arguments and opposed the present Application vehemently, and questioned the grant of prayers made by the applicants in the present Revision Application, contending that the scope of Criminal Revision Application is limited and simply FIR can never represent entire evidence of the case and, therefore submitted that quashing of charges in Criminal Revision, by just referring to recitals in the FIR, would not be proper. To substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon judicial pronouncement of Apex Court in the case of TejBir and another Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported at 2012 AIR SCW 1162, wherein Apex Court has observed thus:
"8. An F.I.R. can never represent the entire evidence of the case. In the instant case, even though in the F.I.R., a reference was made to Kewal Kishan as mater-minding of the conspiracy, the High Court should have refrained itself from quashing the charges by just referring to the recitals in the F.I.R.
12. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court cannot affirm the view taken by the High Court."
12. In so far as definition of 'dowry' under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and amendments thereto are concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously submitted that the demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business and one motorcycle, made by the applicants to the victim, as reflected in the very complaint dated 21-9-2002 lodged by the complainant, namely, Tatyarao Babaji Jadhav, come under the purview of said definition of 'dowry' and amendments thereto, and submitted that the expression 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after marriage in connection with marriage of the said parties, and to substantiate the same, he has relied upon judicial pronouncement of Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported at AIR 2010 SC 2839, wherein Apex Court has observed thus:
"From the definition it is clear that, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to another, by parents of either party to each other or any other person at, before, or at any time after the marriage and in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr under the Muslim Personal Law. All the expressions used under this Section are of a very wide magnitude. The expressions 'or any time after marriage' and 'in connection with the marriage of the said parties' were introduced by amending Act 63 of 1984 and Act 43 of 1986 with effect from 02.10.1985 and 19.11.1986 respectively. These amendments appear to have been made with the intention to cover all demands at the time, before and even after the marriage so far they were in connection with the marriage of the said parties. This clearly shows the intent of the legislature that these expressions are of wide meaning and scope. The expression 'in connection with the marriage' cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. The expression 'in connection with the marriage' even in common parlance and on its plain language has to be understood generally. The object being that everything, which is offending at any time i.e. at before or after the marriage, would be covered under this definition, but the demand of dowry has to be ' in connection with the marriage' and not so customary that it would not attract, on the face of it, the provisions of this section. "
13. Besides, learned Additional Public Prosecutor canvassed that the statements of witnesses, more particularly, statements of Shivaji Tatyarao Jadhav, brother of the victim; Kum. Leena Tatyarao Jadhav, sister of the victim; Kaushalya Tatyarao Jadhav, mother of the victim, and one Harishchandra Govindrao Birajdar, disclose that the applicants made demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle from deceased Anjali within span of one month after the marriage and she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty due to non-fulfillment thereof. Moreover, he further submitted that marriage of deceased Anjali took place with applicant no.2 Sanjay on 17-3-2002 and deceased Anjali committed suicide by hanging herself on 21-9-2002 i.e. within span of almost six and half months, and the said fact is self-explicit. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is sufficient ground / material to proceed against the applicants for the charge under Section 304B, read with Section 34 of IPC, and the learned trial court rightly framed charge against the applicants thereunder and rightly dismissed the application for discharge preferred by them, and no interference therein is called for in the present Criminal Revision Application, and therefore, urged that it be dismissed.
14. I have perused the present Criminal Revision Application, its annexures, the very complaint dated 21-9-2002, charge sheet Exhibit "B", statements of witnesses, charge dated 4-12-2004 (Exhibit 14) framed in Sessions Case No. 71/2004, and application for discharge preferred by the applicants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, below Exhibit 21 on 10-3-2010, and the order passed thereunder by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, on 5-7-2012, which is impugned in the present Application, and heard rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, anxiously, as well as, perused judicial pronouncements cited by them, carefully.
15. At the outset, it is apparent that the complaint was filed by the complainant Tatyarao Babaji Jadhav with Police Station, Omerga, on 21-9-2002, and on the basis thereof, crime was registered against the applicants under CR No. 164/2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, investigation was carried out by the investigating agency and charge sheet came to be filed against the applicants on 31-12-2002 under R.C.C. No. 402/2002, and after committal, it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 5/2004. Accordingly, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, framed charge against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC, alternatively under Section 498A, read with Section 34 of IPC; under Section 306 of IPC, alternatively under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, and under Section 304B of IPC, alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, on 4-12-2004 (Exhibit 14). However, thereafter the applicants have preferred application for discharge before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, on 10-3-2010 i.e. almost lapse of about 6 years below Exhibit 21. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, passed the order thereon on 5-7-2012 and rejected the said application for discharge preferred by the applicants. Thus, framing of charge against the applicants, under Section 304B of IPC, alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC on 4-12-2004, and the rejection of the application for discharge on 5-7-2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, for the offence punishable under Section 304B or alternatively, under Section 304B, read with Section 34 of IPC, have been impugned in the present Criminal Revision Application.
16. Admittedly, the applicants have not given any reason for the delay of about 6 years for preferring the application for discharge since the charge was framed against the applicants on 4-12-2004, as aforesaid, whereas application for discharge was preferred by them on 10-3-2010, as mentioned herein above. Apart from that, coming to the factual aspects of the matter, contents of the very complaint lodged by complainant Tyatyarao Babaji Jadhav on 21-9-2002 disclose the averments that his deceased daughter has informed him that the applicants have demanded amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from her for business and one motorcycle to be brought by her from her parents and, therefore, they used to harass her. Moreover, statements of other witnesses, namely, Shivaji Tatyarao Jadhav, brother of the victim; Kum. Leena Tatyarao Jadhav, sister of the victim; Kaushalya Tatyarao Jadhav, mother of the victim, and one Harishchandra Govindrao Birajdar, are apparently in consonance with the aforesaid contents of the complaint. The said statements also reflect that deceased Anjali was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the applicants due to non-fulfillment of the said demands. Admittedly, marriage between deceased Anjali and applicant no.2 Sanjay took place on 17-3-2002 and the victim Anjali committed suicide by hanging herself at the residence of the applicants on 21-9-2002. Hence, it is apparently clear that death of victim Anjali took place within span of almost six and half months from the date of marriage.
17. Keeping in mind the aforesaid factual aspects, and coming to the legal position, the question arises whether the alleged demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle from deceased Anjali, by the applicants, comes under the purview of Section 304B of IPC and under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and amendments thereto, and for that purpose, it is necessary to reproduce said Sections:
"304B. Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation -- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. "
"2. Definition of "dowry" - In this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation II - The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). "
Ingredients of Section 304B of IPC are such that (a) death of woman was caused any burns or bodily injury or had occurred other than under normal circumstances, (b) such death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage, (c) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (d) such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with the demand of dowry, and (e) to such cruelty or harassment, the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death.
18. Thus, according to the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the applicants, the crux of the matter is that "whether such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand of dowry". Admittedly, some customary payment in connection with the birth of child or other ceremonies, are not involved within ambit of 'dowry'. Hence, 'dowry' mentioned in Section 304B of IPC should be any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. According to amendments to Section 2 of definition of 'dowry', 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly, at or before, or any time after the marriage in connection with marriage of the said parties. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra), cited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has enumerated the scope of term 'dowry' observing that the expressions 'or any time after marriage' and 'in connection with the marriage of the said parties', are of wide meaning and scope. The expression 'in connection with the marriage' cannot be given a restricted or a narrower meaning. The expression 'in connection with the marriage' even in common parlance and on its plain language has to be understood generally. The object being that everything which is offending at any time i.e. at, before or after the marriage would be covered under this definition but the demand of dowry has to be 'in connection with the marriage' and not so customary that it would not attract on the face ot it the provisions of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thus, applying parameters of the enunciation of the definition of 'dowry' and amendments thereto, made by the Apex Court, to the factual aspects of the present case, I am of the view that there is no substance in the arguments canvassed by the learned Advocate for the applicants.
19. Besides, considering the very complaint lodged by the complainant Tatyarao Babaji Jadhav, and statements of the aforesaid witnesses, and also considering record of the case, I am of the view that there is sufficient ground / material to frame charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, alternatively under Section 394B read with Section 34 of IPC. Moreover, it also cannot be overlooked that deceased Anjali died unnatural death almost within six and half months from marriage, and apparently, there is prima facie material to show that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty on demand of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and one motorcycle, which can be apparently construed under the term of 'dowry', as discussed herein above, and therefore, apparently there is prima facie material to proceed against the applicants for the charge under Section 304B of IPC, alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC.
20. In the circumstances, having comprehensive view of the matter, I do not find any error in framing of charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC, alternatively under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, and consequent rejection of the application for discharge preferred by the applicants under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, below Exhibit 21, on 5-7-2012, and hence, no interference therein is called for in the present Criminal Revision Application, and therefore, same deserves to be rejected.
21. In the result, present Criminal Revision Application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion in the case, in question, on merits, and the aforesaid observations are prima facie in nature.