Madhya Pradesh High Court
Salim vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: I(1999)DMC701
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Trial Court convicting for an offence under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months, and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI of three months.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Naseem Bano was married with petitioner Salim and they resided together as husband and wife for some days. The complainant alleged that after the marriage Salim and his parents demanded dowry from the parents of Naseem Bano, though at the time of said marriage which took place on 9.2.1983, her father had gifted the nuptial gifts to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The said amount was allegedly 5 to 7 thousand rupees. As per the allegation of Naseem Bano on 19.1.1984 she was driven out of the house for getting the amount of dowry from her father. On 21.8.1984, father of Naseem Bano pledged some ornaments and raised Rs. 1,000/- which were given to the petitioner Saleem. Even then, the demand of dowry was not abandoned by the petitioner Saleem, the husband of complainant Naseem Bano. In the result Naseem Bano was constrained to file a complaint with the police on 28.1.1985 which resulted in the trial in which Saleem, his father Chhammabhai and mother Begumbai were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the sentence was passed against them as mentioned above.
3. The appeal was preferred and while deciding the Criminal Appeal No. 53/ 87, IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dewas held that the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, was spelledout and thus he maintained the order of conviction and sentence so far as that offence is concerned, by maintaining the sentence which was inflicted on petitioner only and that is also being challenged by this revision petition.
4. Mr. Shaligram, Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the charge was defective and it did cause prejudice to the defence of the petitioners which resulted in miscarriage of justice. He pointed out that the said charge was not giving the particulars in detail which misled the petitioners in his defence.
5. Mr. Prakash Verma, Dy. G.A. appearing for the respondent submitted that the said charge was consistent with the provisions of law. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was misled in the defence which resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
6. After examining the judgment and order of the Courts below in context with the evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner was never misled in the defence and there has been no miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Court has rightly referred to the provisions of Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code and has rightly held that the irregularities in framing the sentences of the charge was not misleading the petitioner in his defence and causing miscarriage of justice. It is necessary to refer to provisions of Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as under:
"Section 215: No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice."
7. The charge is giving sufficient idea of the allegation which the petitioner was to meet. In fact, the cross-examination of the witnesses depicted that the petitioner was well aware of the allegation which he was to meet in the trial. On necessary facets of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act, these witnesses have been cross examined. The trial would vitiate on account of the defective charge only when the record shows that the accused has been misled in his defence on account of the defects in the charge framed against him and furthermore, that has to result in the miscarriage of justice. Otherwise, omission on fringes, errors of insufficiency in details, on some fringes, do not make the trial vitiated if omissions do not lead to miscarriage of justice which requires interference from the higher Courts. The complainant may not be apt in giving the details in the FIR, the investigation officer may not be apt enough to indicate pointer of the investigation towards the charge-sheet against the accused with the investigation disclosing the full details. If these things do not result in the misleading of the accused and resultant miscarriage of justice, those errors are to be ignored as normal errors likely to be committed by the human beings, in ordinary course of their life. It is pertinent to note that when such accuse is assisted by a lawyer and the cross-examination of the witness is on all the necessary facets, the trial would not be vitiated on account of such errors in the charge. Thus I discard this submission which has been advanced on behalf of the petition, on this aspect of the matter.
8. Mr. Shaligram, thereafter submitted that there has been mis-appreciation of the evidence which has resulted the error in passing the order of conviction and sentence. This has been contradicted by the Dy. G. A. Mr. Prakash Verma, appearing for the respondent. After examining the evidence on record and the way in which the Courts below have appreciated the evidence, I do not find that there has been any illegality and improper approach followed by the Courts below in appreciating the evidence and thereafter coming to the conclusion of holding the petitioner guilty. I dismiss the submission advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner on this count also.
9. Mr. Shaligram submitted that the order of conviction and sentence pertains to a period nearly 14 years back. He further submitted that there was a compromise between Saleem and Naseem Bano and by virtue of that compromise Saleem has paid a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to Naseem Bano and returned the nuptial gifts. He also pointed out that Naseem Bano is also no more. He submitted that Saleem is now living a matrimonial life with another wife and he has also undergone the sentence of one month. He submitted that in view of all these things sentence which has already been undergone by the petitioner be treated to be sufficient for purging him out of his guilt. Mr. Verma submitted that the sentence requires to be appropriate to the gravity of the act committed by the petitioner.
10. The sentence has to be always proportionate to the act committed by the offender. True, it is to be reformative but at the same time it has to be alarming so far as the other like-minded persons are concerned. Demand of dowry and resultant harassment of the bride is a curse under which the society is still pressed. The tears in the eyes of tortures brides, discarded wives tell their woeful stories which creates a painful trauma to the society. The persons who were having traditions of demand and payment of dowry, are at the same time required to abandone them but at the same time, the persons from the religion which does not recognize the system of payment and demand of dowry are being prosecuted for such offences. The social leaders of the society have to think very seriously about it. If the sentence in this case is not deterrant, the persons following a particular religion which does not recognize the demand or payment of dowry, will also be tempted to follow such practice. That has to be considered while dealing with the submission for leniency in the sentence.
11. It has been submitted that Salim, the petitioner, is living a matrimonial life with another wife and therefore, leniency in the sentence be shown. How Salim, the petitioner can pray for such a leniency when his act of divorcing Naseem Bano, unfortunately, was the cause amongst others which led to her death? It is a tragic thing that Naseem Bano could not survive for more than two years after she was divorced by Saleem. Petitioner who is having the pleasure of matrimonial life with another wife at the cost of harassment and fall of Naseem Bano, cannot be permitted to pray for any leniency in the sentence and payment of Rs. 9,000/- and return of nutpial gifts, could not be treated to be a solace for such harassed, gloomy, disappointed, crest fallen and vanquished bride. That cannot certainly mitigate the gravity of the act committed by the petitioner Salim for which he has to suffer the sentence. Let this be an examine for others who would be tempted to follow such indecent practice of demand and payment of dowry. The legislature has prescribed the sentence which may extend to two years. Even then, the Trial Court has sentenced Saleem for the sentenced of RI for six months which is a minimum one. Let that minimum sentence be suffered by the petitioner which would be an examine to other like-minded persons.
Thus I dismiss the submission of leniency of sentence also.
In the result, the revision stands dismissed.