SC to examine issue of dowry demand

New Delhi, June 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court has decided to examine the issue whether a person accused of demanding dowry can be held guilty of the offence even if he has dropped his demands and has agreed to marry without dowry.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P P Naolekar yesterday issued notice to the state of Madhya Pradesh on a petition filed by one Manohar Lal, a sub-engineer in Public Health Engineering department of M P government, challenging his conviction and sentence for an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 which says that demanding dowry before, at or after the marriage is an offence.

The court also granted bail to the petitioner on his furnishing bail bond for Rs 25000 along with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the judicial magistrate, first class, Harda.

The accused was acquitted by the trial court along with his father and brother on December 21, 1990 but the state filed an appeal in the high court. Single judge of the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pardesh high court reversed the order of acquittal against the petitioner but upheld the acquittal of two others in the case.

The counsel for the petitioner Suresh Chand and K Shivraj Choudhuri contended before the apex court that both the courts below have overlooked the strong mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused that he had given up his demand for fridge and scooter on May 19, 1986 following intervention by the villagers and had agreed to marry the girl without any dowry and hence offence under section 4 of the Act was not committed by him as he withdrew his demand well in time and stopped short of committing the offence.

The counsel also pleaded that the girl Vijaya Malviya was never examined as prosecution witness and the petitioner did not get an opportunity to examine the main witness in the case.

The petitioner also pleaded that the high court was not justified in reversing the order of acquittal after a gap of 16 years without any compelling circumstances and will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the petitioner loses his job as the survival of his entire family including five small children, wife and aged father will be in jeopardy.

Moreover it was girl's family who had refused to perform marriage and the petitioner and the girl are now well settled in their matrimonial lives and sending the petitioner to jail after a gap of 21 years will not be in the interest of justice.

UNI