{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.348 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra Through PSO, Nardana Tq-Shindkheda, Dist-Dhule APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Suklal Munnalal Jaiswal 2. Kusumbai Kuklal Jaiswal 3. Mayakulal Suklal Jaiswal 4. Radhesham Suklal Jaiswal All R/o Navapur, Dist-Dhule RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.S.Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for appellant ....... [CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.] DATE : 18th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against judgment rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shindkheda in a criminal case bearing RCC No.130/1997 whereby the respondents No.1 to 4 have {2} been acquitted for offence punishable u/s 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during course of the trial, is that, marriage of complainant’s daughter with respondent No.4 Radhesham was settled. Respondents demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which was to be paid before performance of the marriage. Engagement ceremony was performed. The marriage was scheduled on 24th February 1994. Respondents No.1 to 4, however, did not attend the function of marriage because the dowry amount was not paid in advance. They declined to go ahead with the marriage of respondent No.4 and the daughter of the complainant. Consequently, the complainant lodged FIR at Nardana police station. The police carried out certain investigation into the complaint. The respondents were chargesheeted on basis of the material gathered during course of the investigation. 3. At the trial, the complainant Sitaram examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses namely PW2 Sureshkumar and PW3 Jitendra. Respondents examined DW1 Krishna, in support of their defense. Learned Judicial Magistrate held that the evidence placed on record was insufficient to reach conclusion that the respondents had demanded dowry from PW-1 Sitaram (Complainant). 4. Unfortunately, when this appeal has come up for final {3} hearing, it is noticed that record and proceedings of the trial court is unavailable due to destruction of “C” and “D” files. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the relevant statements, with the help of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Mr.Patil would submit that the evidence on record is sufficient to establish guilt of the respondents. 5. The evidence tendered by the prosecution would show that there is only oral evidence as regards the alleged demand of dowry amount. Testimony of PW1- Sitaram purports to show that he declined to pay the dowry amount and, therefore, the respondents remained absent at the marriage ceremony which was to be performed on 24 th February 1994. The other two witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are nephew and close relative of complainant-PW1 Sitaram. There is oath against oath. Testimony of DW1 Krishna purports to show that the respondent No.4 was insulted by the complainant and his relatives during performance of engagement ceremony due to his obesity. They did not approve him. Probably, because he was obessed. It was for such reason that they did not go to the place of marriage and had conveyed to the complainant that they would not attend the marriage ceremony. 6. It appears from the cross examination of PW3 Jitendra that the gift articles as demanded by the respondents were given. The Investigating Officer was not examined. No independent {4} witness was examined. It is pertinent to note that PW3 Jitendra is son in law of PW1 Sitaram. The 3 witnesses are, thus, close relatives and have common interest to book the respondents. There could be some intermiddler in the settlement of the marriage. One who had intermiddled, was not put in the witness box. Thus, the oral evidence tendered by the complainant and his witnesses, is somewhat shaky. Admittedly, the presentation articles, which were given to the respondents at time of the engagement ceremony, were not demanded by them, but were given in accordance with the prevailing custom. The learned Judicial Magistrate, therefore, rightly held that those articles were not part of dowry. There is no sufficient proof regarding demand for dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.] drp/criapl348-98