STATE OF KARNATAKA versus DATTARAJ & OTHERS
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 570, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 570 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 326of2012) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.498A, 304B r!w s.34 - Dowry Prohibition 
Act, 1961 - ss.3, 4 and 6 -Dowry death - Victim deceased was 
subjected to dowry demands, cruelty and harassment by the 
husband, his brother and parents - She died of burn injuries within 
7 years of marriage - Trial court convicted all the four accused 
persons ulss.498A, 304B r!w s.34 !PC and ss.3, 4 and 6 of Act of 
1961 holding that taunts and physical torture at the hands of accused 
were established from eye witnesses account - High Court upheld 
conviction of husband-respondent - As regards the other 3 accused 
they were acquitted on the ground that they had played no role in 
the death of the deceased and also the mother and brother of the 
victim-deceased did not attribute any kind of overt acts of cruelty 
or harassment to the other accused - States appeal against acquittal 
- Held: The testimony of PWl-the mother of the victim-deceased 
showed that the monetary gifts given to husband and his family 
members were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during 
different ceremonies and, therefore they were in accord with 
prevailing practice· and tradition - Demand of Rs.20,000 for 
purchas'e of agricultural land was made two years before the 
occurrence which also does not satisfy the requirement of 'soon 
before her death'
contemplated uls.304B - As regards the demand 
of sewing machine, PWl testified that sewing machine was really a 
gift to the deceased as she knew tailol'ing - In view of testimony of 
PWl, it cannot be considered as demand made by deceased's 
G husband for himself or for his family members - There was no 
further attribution, as against the respondents-accused nos. 2 to 4 
- Jn such view of the matter, the culpability of respondent-accused 
nos. 2 to 4, in the entire occurrence was not established -
High 
Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting re.1pondent-accused 
nos. 2 to 4, for the said offences. 
H 
570
STATE OF KARNATAj(A v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
Dismissin~ the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Perusal of the statement of PW-1, the mother of 
victim-deceased clearly showed that the monetary gifts given to 
husband and his family members, were in the nature of customary 
gifts exchanged during different ceremonies. But what is of 
extreme significance is the fact, that even the family of the husband 
of the deceased had· given four tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a 
bag of jowar to her family, when the family of victim-deceased 
visited her matrimonial house, on the occasion of the birth of a 
.·1\.. 
. 
female child. It is acknowledged by PW-1, that the aforesaid gifts 
were taken by the family members of the deceased to their own 
village, by hiring a "tum-tum" (a horse-drawn cart). This return 
gift by the family of accused-respondent was also in conformity 
with the customary Jradition for such occasions. It seems that 
the two families celebrated all festivities in the spirit of their 
customary obligations. Both families engaged iu offering gifts to 
each other, in accord with the prevailing practice aud tradition. 
{Para 17] (580-H; 581-A-C] 
·· 2. Insofar as the demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of 
agricultural land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was 
allegedly made when husband .of deceased was in Dubai. The said 
demand was allegedly made by respondent- accused no.2, the 
father-in-law of deceased when he had gone to leave the deceased 
at her maternal
home. The deceased's husband is stated to have 
returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the a1iove 
demand. A female child was born to the deceased about a year 
after the return of her husband to India. After the birth of the 
female child, the deceased had remained in her maternal house, 
for about four to five months. Therefore, even if the above oral 
allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about 
two years before the occurrence. The same was too remote to 
the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement 
of "soon before her death" contemplated under Section 304B(l) 
IPC. The only remaining alleged dowry demand was that of a 
sewing-machine. During cross-examination PWl stated, that the 
deceased knew tailoring. And that, the sewing-machine was given 
to her for tailoring clothes. This was really a gift to the deceased 
and therefore, cannot be considered as a part of'the demand made 
571 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
572 
SL:PREME COL:RT REPORTS 
[2016J 2 S.C.R. 
A 
by deceased's husband for himself or for his family members. 
This allegation, is inconsequential, with respect to the provisions 
under which the accused were charged. [Paras 18, 19] [581-D-H] 
3. The High Court was _justified in recording that even the 
statements of PW-I and PW-4, did not attribute any kind of overt 
B act to respondent•accused nos. 2 to 4. The High Court was, 
therefore, fully justified in acquitting respondent-accused nos. 2 
to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 3048 
read with Section 34 of the IPC, as. also, for the charges under 
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act. [Para 20] [582-B-C] 
C 
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477: 
2015 (2) SCR 835 - held inapplicable. 
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207: 
2000 (3) SCR 662; Tumma/a Venkatesll'ar Rao v. State 
of Andhra Pr.adesh (2014) 2 SCC 240: 2013 (17) SCR 
o 
573; Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 
721: 2007 (1) SCR 164 - referred to. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference 
2000 (3) SCR 662 
referred to 
Para 14 
2013 (17) SCR 573 
referred to 
Para 14 
2015 (2) SCR 835 
held inapplicable 
Para ·15 
2007 (1) SCR 164 
referred to 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
326 of2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2009 of the High Court 
ofKamataka, at Bangalore, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Criminal Appeal 
No. 3514 of2008. 
I 
Ms. Anitha Shenoy for the
appellants. 
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmoy 
Deshpande (For Mr. B. Subrahmanya Prasad) for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. Dattaraj - the respondent-
accused no. I, married Savita (since deceased), on 7.6.2002. About
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
573 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.) 
three months before the marriage, at the asking of Dattaraj, it was agreed 
to give Rs.21,000/- in cash and 3 to las of gold. Accordingly, the family 
of Savita complied with the aforesaid commitment, at the time of 
marriage. After their marriage, Savita started to live in her matrimonial 
ho.11se along withpattaraj (respondent-accused no. l ). Soon after his 
marriage, Dattaraj went to Dubai, leaving Savita at the matrimonial house. 
During his absence, she went t0 her parents' house. Dattaraj contacted 
Savita, and had a telephonic conversation with her, while she was at her 
parents' house. He enquired from lfer, with whose permission she had 
gone to her maternal house. He also rebuked her for having left the 
matrimonial house, without his permission. 
2. While Savita was in her maternal house, Dattaraj required her 
to get Rs.20,000/- in cash from her parents, as his brother needed the 
money to purchase some agricultural land. On the asking of Dattaraj, 
Savita got the money from her parents .. After Dattaraj returned from 
Dubai, he was invited by Savita's parents for a "pooja" (prayer) ceremony. 
The "pooja" had been arranged to celebrate the in'Stallation of a bore-
well, on the agricultural lands owned by Savita's father. It was alleged, 
that Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. l) had agreed to attend the "pooja", 
only if he was given three to las of gold, as also, wearing apparel. As
against the above, the assertion of Dattaraj was, that such gifts were. 
customary, and were given by the parents of Savita, on their own free 
will. In any case, it is not a matter of dispute, that gold and clothing were 
indeed given to Dattaraj, during the "pooja" arranged by the parents of 
Savita, to celebrate the installation ofa bore-well. 
3. After Dattaraj returned from Dubai, Savita became pregnant. 
She left for her maternal house, prior to her delivery. She delivered a 
girl child, at her parents' house. Thereafter, she returned to her 
matrimonial house. 
4. On yet another occasion, while Savita along with Dattaraj 
(respondent-accused no. l) had gone to stay with her parents, it was 
alleged, that Dattaraj had made similar monetary demands. On this 
occasion, Savita's parents had expressed their helplessness, and had 
informed Dattaraj, that they did not have adequate resources to meet his 
.demands. It was also alleged, that on this occasion, Dattaraj had picked 
up a quarrel with the parents ofSavita. It was alleged, that when Savi ta . 
returned to her matrimonial house with Dattaraj, she was taunted by the 
brotherofDattaraj, namely, by Siddappa@ Siddaraj (res11.ondent-accused 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20 I 6] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
no. 3), as also by Ningesh (respondent-accused no. 2) and Revamma 
(respondent-accused no. 4), the father and mother ofrespondent-accused 
no. I respectively, for bringing inadequate gifts from her parents' house. 
5. Savita went to her parents' house for "Rakhi Poomima" (festival 
to celebrate sanctity of the brother-sister, relationship), to tie a "rakhi" 
B 
(sacred thread) on her brother's arm. It was alleged, that Dattaraj 
demanded a sewing machine. This demand made by· Dattaraj was 
allegedly met by the parents of Saviia. This is yet another incident of 
the alleged demand of dowry, made by Dattaraj and his family members. 
6. The case of the prosecution is, that despite the fact that the 
c 
parents of Savita met all the demands made by Dattaraj, as well as, his 
family members, they remained unsatisfied and continued to pressurise 
Savita's family for more dowry. It is also the case of the prosecution, 
that Dattaraj used to harass and ill-treat Savita, and would even assault 
her. 
D 
E 
7. On 1.9.2006, Savitadiedofbum injuries. ThemotherofSavita, 
Tukkubai - PW-I, was informed about the burn injuries suffered by 
Savita, on 1.9.2006 itself. She was also informed, that Savita, had been 
admitted to hospital. When Tukkubai-PW-1 reached the hospital along 
with her son Dattatry- PW-4, the dead body of Savita was lying in the 
mortuary of the Government hospital, Gulbarga. None of the 
respondents-accused was present
at the hospital. Immediately, Tukkubai 
- PW- I, filed a complaint. In the complaint it was alleged, that the 
respondents-accused had committed the murder of Savita, on account 
of their dowry demands having not been met, by the maternal family of 
Savita. The above report was lodged on 2.9.2006 i.e., the day following 
F. 
the death of Savita. The fact, that Savita was left all by herself at the 
hospital, and that no one out of the respondents-accused attended upon 
her even during her pitiable condition, was alleged as sufficient to establish, 
that the relationship between Savita and the family of her in-laws, was 
not cordial. The defence repudiated the version of the prosecution by 
G 
asserting, that Savita had committed suicide on account of her over-
sensitive nature. 
8. Consequent upon the culmination of the investigation, a 
chargesheet was filed by the prosecution, leading to the framing of 
charges against Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. I), his brother Siddappa 
@ Siddaraj (respondent-accused no. 3), his father Ningesh (respondent-
H 
accused no. 2), and his mother Revamma (respondent-accused no. 4).
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
The respondents-accused were charged with the offences punishable 
under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, the !PC), as well as, under 
Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter 
referred to as, the Dowry Act). The factual position recorded above, 
constituted the basis of the alleged actions of cruelty, by the respondents-
accused towards Savita, and therefore, the offence under Section 498A. 
The fact that Savita had died of burn injuries, within seven years of her 
marriage, and that, she was being subjected to dowry demands, cruelty 
and harassmenr·by the accused, was the basis for substa.ntiating the 
offence under Section 304B of the !PC. 
9. The Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-Ill), Bidar, who tried the 
respondents-accused arrived at the conclusion, that the cash, the go Id 
and other gifts given by the parents of Sa vita to the accused, were in the 
nature of dowry articles presented by Savita's family, to Dattaraj and 
other members of bis family. This conclusion was arrived at b€cause 
the term "dowry" means and includes, property or valuable security 
given either directly or indirectly, not only at the time of marriage, but 
also at any time after marriage. 
10. Despite the fact thatTukkubai- PW-1, admitted that the family 
ofDattaraj had gifted the maternal family of Sa vita, 4 tonnes of sugarcane
seeds and a bag ofjowar, when a girl child was delivered by Savita, the 
trial Court concluded, that the taunts and physical torture at the hands of 
the accused, stood established from eye-witnesses account. The same 
were considered sufficient to establish, mental and physical cruelty 
towards Savita. Tire evidence indicating that Savita had been asking 
Dattaraj not to go to Dubai, which according to the defence, was sufficient 
to establish, ihatthere was love and harmony between them, was rejected. 
The threat ofSavita to Dattaraj, that ifhe went abroad, he may not find 
her alive, was also found to be of no substance. The trial Court also 
rejected the contention of the accused, that Savita had a meal at the 
residence of the sister of Dattaraj -Sulebai, just two hours before the 
occurrence, again to indicate that Savita was not being harassed by the 
family ofDattaraj. The ground for such rejection by the trial Court was, 
that even though it was established that Savita had eaten her meal two 
hours before the occurrence, yet there was no evidence to establish that 
she had eaten her meal, at the house ofSulebai-the sister ofDattaraj. 
The trial Court also rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the 
575 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
576 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
respondents-accused, that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem 
examination had deposed, that the deceased had no physical injuries on 
her person. This was used by the defence to establish, that the burn 
injuries were an act of suicide, at the free will of Savita herself. And 
that, the respondents-accused had not committed any act linked to the 
incident of burning. 
11. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted all the four accused persons 
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with 
Section 34 of the !PC, and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act. 
The following sentences were awarded by the trial Court to the accused:-
" All !he accused persons are sentenced to undergo imprisonment 
for life for the offence punishable under Section 304B of !PC. 
Further, they are sentenced to undergo si,J11ple imprisonment for 3 
year~, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) 
each, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of !PC. In 
default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. 
Further, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 
years and to pay a fine of Rs. I 0,000/- each for the offence 
punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In 
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 
Further, they are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 
years, and to pay a fine of Rs. l 5,000/- each, for the offence
punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In default 
to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year; and lastly 
They are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years, 
and to pay a fine of Rs.I 0,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each, for 
the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition 
Act. In default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six 
ll1<lnths. 
All the said substantive sentences shall run concurrently. They 
are entitled for set off. 
G 
Out of the fine amount, it is ordered to pay Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to the mother of the 
deceased." 
H 
12. All the four respondents-accused preferred Criminal Appeal 
no. 3514 of2008 before the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court). A Division Bench 
of the High Court convicted Dattaraj and acquitted the other three 
accused, namely, the brother, the father and the mother of Dattaraj. 
While arrivini·at the conclusion, that the other three accused besides 
the husband of Sa vita, namely, Dattaraj (respondent-accused no. I) had 
played no role in the death of Savita, the High Court was of the view, 
that the evidence ofTukkubai - PW-I and Dattatry- PW-4, the mother 
and the brother of the deceased respectively, did not attribute any kind 
of overt acts of cruelty or harassment to respondent-accused nos. 2 to 
4, and as such, their conviction under Sections 498A and 3048 read with 
Section 34 of the !PC, was bad in law. For the same reason, respondent-
accused nos. 2 to 4 were found innocent, insofar as, the allegations 
under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act are concerned, and were 
accordingly acquitted for the offences punishable thereunder. 
13. Dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30.6.2009 passed 
by the High Court, the State of Karnataka has approached this Court 
through the present appeal. 
14. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the 
State of Karnataka vehemently contended, that the acquittal of the 
accused by the High Court, was in clear violation of the declaration of 
law, with reference to the .. provisions under which the accused were
charged. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, reliance 
in the first instance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in 
Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 207. Learned counsel 
invited our pointed attention to the following observations recorded 
therein:-
"15. It is further contended on beliaff of the respondents that the 
statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be 
termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before 
her death. "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be 
considered under specific circumstances of each case and no 
straitjacket formula can be laid down by fixing any time-limit. 
This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The 
term "soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately 
before" and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used 
and understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence 
Act. These words would imply that the interval should not be too 
long between the time of making the statement and the death. It 
577 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
578 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
contemplates the reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to 
be understood and determined under the peculiar circumstances 
of each case. In relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances 
showing the existence of cruelty or harassment to the deceased 
are not restricted to a particular instance but normally refer to a 
course of conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of 
time. If the cruelty or harassment or demand for dowry is shown 
to have persisted, it shall be deemed to be "soon before death" if 
any other intervening circumstance showing the non-existence of 
such treatment is not brought on record, before such alleged 
treatment and the date of death. It does not, however, mean that 
such time can be stretched to any period. Proximate and live link 
between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the 
consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution. 
The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such 
demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time 
which, under the circumstances, be treated as having become 
stale enough." 
(emphasis supplied) 
Learned counsel submitted, that the view expressed in the Kans 
Raj case (supra) had been reiterated in another decision rendered by 
E 
this Court in Tummala Venkateswar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 
(2014) 2 sec 240. 
15. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, 
on a recent
judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of this Court in 
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477, wherein Section 
F 
304B has been explained to the effect, that the term "dowry" expressed 
therein, would not be limited to the traditional meaning attached to the 
aforesaid expression, but would include a demand for money for other 
purposes as well. In this behalf it would be relevant to mention, that the 
three-judge Bench did not accept the position expressed in Appasaheb 
v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721, in connection whereof, this 
G 
Court had first explained the position in the Appasaheb case (supra), as 
under:-
"! I. This Court has spoken sometimes with divergent voices both 
on what would fall within "dowry" as defined and what is meant 
by the expression "soon before her death''. In Appasaheb v. State 
H 
of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721, this Court construed the
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
definition of dowry strictly, as it forms part of Section 304-B which 
is part of a penal statute. The.Court held that a demand for money 
for defraying the expenses of manure made to a young wife who 
in turn made the same demand to her father would be outside the 
definition of dowry. This Court said: (SCC p. 727, para 11) 
"11 .... A demand for money on account of some financial 
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for 
purchasing manure cann.ot 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~ 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." 
And thereupon, having examined the object and intent of the 
legislation, this Court held in the Rajinder Singh case (supra), as under:-
"26. The facts of this appeal are glaring. Demands for money 
were made shortly after one year of the marriage. A she-buffalo 
was given by the father to the daughter as a peace offering. The 
peace offering had no effect. The daughter was ill-treated. She 
went back to her father and demanded money again. The father, 
then, went along with his brother and the Sarpanch of the village 
to the matrimonial home with a request that the daughter be not
ill-treated on account of the demand for money. The father also 
assured the said persons that their money demand would be fulfilled 
• 
and that they would have to wait till the crops of his field are 
harvested. Fifteen days before her death, Salwinder Kaur again 
visited her parents' house on being maltreated by her new family. 
Then came death by poisoning. The cross-examination of the father 
of Salwinder Kaur has, in no manner, shaken his evidence. On 
the facts, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by both the 
courts below are upheld. The appeal is dismissed." 
Based on the above decision it was the vehement contention of the 
learned counsel for the appellant, that the demands made by the accused 
for purchase of agricultural land, as also, with reference to a sewing 
machine, were liable to be treated as demands constituting "dowry". 
16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions 
579 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
580 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. It is 
not necessary for us to deal with the statements of various witnesses, 
relied upon by the trial Court, as well as, the High Court. In our considered 
view, it would be sufficient for the disposal of the controversy in hand, to 
refer to a few relevant portions of the cross-examination ofTukkubai -
PW- I, the mother of Savi ta. Tukkubai - PW- I, during the course of her 
cross-examination, acknowledged the following factual position:-
• 
"'It is true two years A-I remained in India after coming from 
Dubai and after one year my daughter delivered female child my 
daughter was in our house at the time of delivery for about 4 to 5 
months. By giving all the necessary ornaments to my grand 
daughter, my daughter was sent to her house. It is true there is 
custom to present gold and clothes to the person if they come 
from foreign country. At the time of putting my grand daughter in 
cradle, we went to their house by engaging "Tam Tam". They 
gave four tonnes sugarcane seeds and a bag of jowar to us and 
we carried them to our village in the said ·Tum Tum". 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
It is true there is custom to give gold and clothes at the time of 
performing Pooja to the bore-well. At the time of Rakhi pourna 
when they came to our house, there was Chikungunya to my 
husband. As my son was notthere in village, A-1 took my husband 
to hospital. It
is not true to suggest to avoid coolie work for my 
daughter, we.ourselves voluntarily gave tailoring machine to my" 
daughter. My daughter was knowing tailoring. Tailoring machine 
was given to our daughter for tailoring clothes by her. A- I once 
again went to Dubai for about two months to bring Visa service. 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
It is not true to suggest my daughter was not having a liking of A-
1 's going to foreign country second time. 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
I have studied up to IV th Standard. My son drafted the complaint 
by sitting in the Govt. hospital." 
17. On a perusal of the statement ofTukkubai- PW-I, the mother 
ofSavita, it is apparent that the monetary gifts given to Dattaraj and his 
H 
family members, were in the nature of customary gifts exchanged during
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DATTARAJ & OTHERS 
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.J 
different ceremonies. But what is of extreme significance is the fact, 
that even the family of Dattaraj, the husband of Savi ta, had given four 
tonnes of sugarcane seeds and a bag of jowar to her family, when the 
family of Sa vita visited her matrimonial house, on the occasion of the 
birth ofa female child. It is acknowledged by Tukkubai- PW-I, that the 
aforesaid gifts were taken by the family members ofSavita to their own 
village, by hiring a "tum-tum" (a horse-drawn cart). This return gift by 
the family of Dattaraj was aiso in conformity with the customary tradition 
for such occasions. If seems that the two families celebrated all festivities 
in the spirit of their customary obligations. Both families engaged in 
offering gifts to each other, in accord with the prevailing practice and 
tradition. For this reason, the judgment rendered by this Court in the 
Raj inder Singh case (supra), which was strongly relied upon by the learned 
counsel for the appellant, in our considered view, would be ofno avail in 
the determination of the projection canvassed. 
18. Insofar as the demand of Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of 
agricultural land is concerned, it is apparent that the same was allegedly 
made when Dattaraj was in Dubai. The said demand was allegedly 
made by Ningesh (respondent--:. accused no.2), the father of Dattaraj, 
when he had gone to leave Savita at her maternal home. Dattaraj is 
stated
to have returned to India from Dubai ei_ght to ten months, after 
the above demand. A female child was born to Savita about a year after 
the return of Dattaraj to India. After the birth of the female child, Savita 
had remained in her maternal house, for about four to five months.. 
Therefore, even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it 
was a demand made about two years before the occurrence. The same 
was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the 
requirement of "soon before her death" contemplated under Section 
304B(I) of the Indian Penal Code. 
19. The only remaining alleged dowry demand, besides those 
referred to above was, that of a sewing-machine. Yet again the position 
was clarified by Tukkubai - PW-I.; During her cross-examination she 
stated, that Savita knew tailoring. And that, the sewing-machine was 
given to her for tailoring clothes. This was really a gift to Savita, and 
therefore, cannot be considered as a part of the demand made by Dattaraj, 
for himself or for his family members. This allegation, in our considered 
view, is inconsequential, with respect to the provisions under which the 
accused were charged. 
581 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
582 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
20. There was no further attribution, as against the respondent -
accused nos. 2 to 4. It is therefore not possible for us to accept, that the 
prosecution was successful in establishing either harassment or violence 
towards Savita, as against the aforestated accused, nor of any dowry 
demand. In such view of the matter, it is difficult for us to conclude the 
culpability of respondent-accused nos. 2 to 4, in the entire occurrence. 
We are satisfied, that the High Court was fully justified in recording that 
even the statements ofTukkubai- PW-I and Dattatry- PW-4, did not 
attribute any kind of overt act to respondent-accu~ed nos. 2 to 4. The 
High Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting respondent-accused 
nos. 2 to 4, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B 
read with Section 34 of the IPC, as also, for the charges under Sections 
3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act. 
21. For the reasons recorded hereinabove we are satisfied, that the 
impugned order passed by the High Court, does not justify any interference 
at our hands. The instant appeal being devoid of any merit, is accordingly 
dismisSl)d. 
Devika Gujral. 
Appeal dismissed.