Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh

01 February 2025 6:58 PM

By: sayum


The Demand for Dowry, in Any Form, is Unlawful and Condemnable– Supreme Court Affirms Guilt but Grants Relief Considering Passage of Time. Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment, has upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act while reducing his sentence to the period already undergone. The Court, however, imposed a compensation of ₹3,00,000 to be paid to the complainant, acknowledging the harassment she endured. Delivering the ruling, a bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “The demand for dowry, in any form, is unlawful and condemnable. While the law must act as a deterrent, justice must also consider the passage of time and the circumstances that have unfolded since the incident.”

The case involved a marriage solemnized on March 31, 2006, between the appellant and the complainant. The union lasted only three days before the complainant left her matrimonial home due to persistent demands for additional dowry. The prosecution, based on the testimony of multiple witnesses, established that the appellant and his family had demanded 100 sovereigns of gold as a precondition for continuing the wedding ceremonies. The complainant’s family had initially agreed to provide 60 sovereigns for the bride and 10 for the groom, but on the day of the wedding reception, the appellant’s father insisted that the event would proceed only if 100 sovereigns were given. Witnesses testified that the groom was withdrawn from the reception dais, refusing to participate in further marriage rituals unless the demand was met.

The trial court, relying on the evidence of the complainant, her relatives, and independent witnesses, convicted the appellant under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment. The appellate court later modified the sentence to two years for Section 498A IPC and one year for the dowry offense, to run concurrently. The High Court, while confirming the conviction, retained this modification. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the conviction was justified. The Court noted, “The evidence on record unequivocally establishes that the appellant and his family harassed the complainant for additional dowry. The ingredients of Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are fully satisfied.” However, the Court took into consideration the fact that the incident occurred in 2006 and that both parties had since moved on in life. The complainant had remarried and settled abroad, and the appellant had undergone three months of imprisonment before securing bail. The Court further observed that the litigation had stretched for nearly 19 years.

In modifying the sentence, the Court relied on the precedent set in Samaul Sk. v. State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court reduced the sentence of the accused in a dowry-related case to time served while directing payment of monetary compensation. In this case, the appellant had not voluntarily offered compensation, but the Court exercised its discretion in ordering him to pay ₹3,00,000 to the complainant. The Court directed that the amount be deposited with the trial court within four weeks for disbursal to the complainant.

The Court made it clear that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time would result in the appeal being treated as dismissed, requiring the appellant to serve the original sentence. The judgment stated, “Justice cannot be blind to the suffering endured by victims of dowry harassment. Compensation is a means of acknowledging the wrong done and providing some measure of relief.”

While the conviction remained intact, the Supreme Court’s decision balanced the need to uphold the law against dowry harassment while recognizing the prolonged legal battle and the changes in the lives of both parties. The ruling reaffirmed that dowry-related offenses are grave and punishable, but also underscored that justice should be tempered with pragmatism where warranted. The case stands as a precedent where courts may consider the passage of time and changed circumstances while ensuring that victims of such offenses receive due compensation for the injustice suffered.

Date of decision: 24/01/2025

Similar News