Conviction Under Section 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act Is Upheld; Sentence Reduced with Rs.3 Lakh Compensation

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal against the Madras High Court judgment dated 21.06.2022 in Criminal R.C. No. 1017 of 2017, which had confirmed conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and modified the sentence. The appellant challenged the High Court’s confirmation of conviction and sought interference with conviction and sentence.

The Court upheld the convictions under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but interfered with the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court confirmed that the essential ingredients of the offences were made out and directed that the sentence stand substituted by the period already undergone, with an additional direction that the appellant deposit Rs. 3,00,000 within four weeks as compensation to the de facto complainant. The Court recorded that the matter dated back to 2006 and had been prolonged for nearly two decades; it observed mitigating facts while sustaining criminal liability. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We are satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected PW-4 to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when PW-4 and her relatives failed to meet such demand. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out.” The Court also noted earlier interim directions on exploring the appellant’s willingness for community service: “Learned counsel for the State shall ascertain and explore the possibility of utilizing the experience of the petitioner an I.T. professional. It is stated that the petitioner is willing to render appropriate community service.”

Background The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on 31.03.2006 which lasted three days. The de facto complainant (PW-4) alleged that the appellant and his family demanded substantial dowry in the form of gold sovereigns and stridhan; a police complaint was lodged on 23.08.2007. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced 46 documents; the defence examined the accused and marked ten exhibits. Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 406 and 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, sentencing him to three years for 498A and one year for Section 4 DP Act; on appeal the Sessions Judge set aside conviction under Section 406 but confirmed convictions under 498A and the DP Act. The High Court confirmed conviction and modified sentence to two years for 498A and maintained one year for the DP Act to run concurrently. The accused approached this Court by special leave.

The Supreme Court examined primary witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, PW-7, PW-11) and the appellant’s testimony, finding consistent evidence of demand for gold sovereigns, refusal to participate in marital ceremonies over unmet demands and conduct amounting to harassment. The Court applied statutory tests for Section 498A and Section 4 of the DP Act and found both offences established. The Court took into account the long pendency of proceedings, the short duration of the marital relationship, the fact that the de facto complainant had since remarried and settled abroad, and the appellant’s earlier interim custody and subsequent bail history. The Court followed its approach in Samaul Sk. v. State of Jharkhand (2021) in reducing sentence on facts and directing compensation, and therefore set aside the impugned sentence while confirming convictions. The final result: appeal partly allowed; convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 DP Act sustained; sentence substituted with period already undergone and appellant ordered to deposit Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation within four weeks; bail bonds to stand discharged upon deposit; failure to deposit would render the appeal dismissed and require surrender to undergo remaining sentence. The Trial Court was directed to disburse the compensation after due identification and to report compliance within six months.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 106 (SLP Cr. No. 9885 of 2023) Case Title: M. Venkateswaran v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, Advocate