Dowry : Gifts given at time of customary thread-changing ceremony on birth of girl not dowry : IPC, 1860]

Three accused, viz., Narayana Murthy (A-1), his father
Kannappa (A-2) and mother Shivabhushan-amma (A-3), were tried by the Sessions
Judge, Bangalore City, u/s.498-A and u/s.304-B of IPC and S. 3, S. 4 and S. 6 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. During the pendency of trial A-2 died. The
learned Trial Judge found the evidence of prosecution witnesses insufficient and
lacking for holding A-1 and A-3 guilty of the offences alleged against them and,
accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges.

On appeal by the State, the Division Bench of the High Court
convicted A-1 for offences u/s.498A and u/s.304-B of IPC and sentenced him to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years u/s.304-B, IPC. The
High Court, however, acquitted A-1 for offence u/s.3, u/s.4 and u/s.6 of the DP
Act, 1961, whereas the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge
in favour of A-3 has been upheld. On 3-9-1989 the marriage of Jagadeshwari, was
celebrated. An amount of Rs.4,000 in cash and five sovereign gold ornaments
allegedly were given to A-1 in dowry at the time of the marriage. After the
marriage, Jagadeshwari started living with A-1, A-2 and A-3 in their house. It
was alleged that after marriage, A-1 to A-3 started harassing Jagadeshari for
not bringing sufficient dowry and were compelling her to bring more dowry from
her parental house. Jagadeshari during her pregnancy period stayed at the house
of her parents for about five months. She gave birth to a female child. It was
alleged that on the day fixed by the parents of Jagadeshari for performing the
customary thread-changing ceremony of the child, A-1 refused to participate in
the said ceremony and he made demand of a gold ring, silver plate and silver
panchpatre as dowry. Since the father of Jagadeshari was not financially sound
to fulfil the demanded articles, he gifted a steel panchapatre and steel plate
to A-1. A-1 expressed his displeasure and went back
to his house. After a few days, Ravichandra (brother) took his sister
Jagadeshwari and her child to the house of A-1, A-2 and A-3 and told them that
his parents would try to meet their demand of dowry articles within a short
time, but still they continued to ill treat and harass Jagadeshari.

Jagadeshari alleged to have bolted the door of the kitchen
from inside and poured kerosene on her body and set herself on fire. Parents of
the deceased, on receipt of information of the death of their daughter through
one of the relatives, rushed to the house of the accused and on visual
inspection they noticed extensive burn injuries on the dead body of Jagadeshari.
On the following day, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint with Police
Station.

The Supreme Court observed that there was no evidence to show
that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of
dowry. The complaint does not reveal that the accused had raised demand of dowry
either in cash or kind at the time of marriage. Further, the Court observed that
gift given at the time of performing customary thread-changing ceremony in
connection with birth of girl child is prevalent in the society and such gifts
cannot come within the ambit of dowry.