-
by Admin
10 November 2025 4:08 PM
“The child who has lost both maternal care and paternal support due to conviction is a dependent victim within the meaning of law” — In a notable judgment addressing both criminal liability for dowry death and the rehabilitative rights of dependents, the Karnataka High Court affirmed the conviction of three individuals for offences under the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, and simultaneously held that the minor son of the deceased qualifies as a ‘victim’ under the Victim Compensation Scheme, entitling him to additional state-funded compensation.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav upheld the findings of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, convicting the husband and in-laws of the deceased under Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The conviction pertained to the death of Lakshmi @ Seema, who committed suicide within two years of marriage due to continued harassment and dowry demands.
Crucially, the Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Belagavi to assess and award compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 to the minor son of the deceased, beyond the Rs. 3,00,000 already deposited by the accused.
“Victim Includes Dependent Who Has Suffered Injury from Crime” — Compensation Ordered for Minor Son
The Court extensively interpreted the term ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) CrPC and Clause 2(e) of the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, holding that the minor child of the deceased woman, who lost his mother to suicide and his father to conviction, is clearly a dependent victim in need of rehabilitation.
“The child has not only lost motherly love and affection but by virtue of confirmation of the order of conviction is also being deprived of fatherly love, affection and his support. The child at this stage still being a minor aged about 12 years requires rehabilitation.” [Para 51]
The Court clarified that the Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited earlier by the accused (pursuant to a bail condition) shall be treated as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC, but that this amount is inadequate and not adjustable against further compensation under the Scheme [Paras 46, 52].
Accordingly, the Court directed:
“It would be appropriate to recommend payment of compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011... the amount of compensation awarded would be kept in a Fixed Deposit till the child attains majority.” [Para 54]
“Dowry Demand, Though Indirect, Attracts Presumption of Dowry Death” – Conviction Under Section 304-B IPC Upheld
Harassment Proven Through Consistent Testimonies and Circumstantial Timeline
The deceased, Lakshmi @ Seema, was married on 08.11.2011, and died by suicide on 06.05.2013, well within seven years of marriage, thereby triggering the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Evidence from her father (PW-1), mother (PW-2), brother (PW-3), and village elder (PW-9) revealed repeated demands for half tola of gold and Rs. 50,000, along with threats by the husband to remarry if dowry was not fulfilled. These witnesses also testified that village elders had intervened, and that harassment continued after she was sent back to her matrimonial home, where she died within eight days.
The Court observed:
“In light of the death within eight days of leaving her in the in-laws house which was preceded by demands for dowry, it could be stated that the cruelty/harassment by the accused was soon before her death.” [Para 28]
Further, the accused failed to explain the circumstances leading to the suicide, and mere suggestions of illness or disinterest in marriage were not substantiated [Paras 30–31].
Hence, the presumption under Section 113B stood attracted, and the conviction under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC was upheld.
“Indirect Dowry Demand Is Also Punishable” – Conviction Under Dowry Prohibition Act Sustained
The Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that dowry demand need not be direct, and that communication of the demand through the deceased to her parents suffices.
“The demand for dowry need not be direct and could be indirect as well. In the present case, there was demand for dowry made against the deceased who has revealed such fact to her family as well as village elder PW-9.” [Para 36]
“Cruelty Established Through Threats and Coercion for Dowry” – Section 498-A IPC Invoked
The Court also sustained conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, noting that cruelty includes:
“Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide... or harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful dowry demand.” [Para 38]
The consistent evidence of multiple witnesses, supported by circumstantial facts and corroborative statements of neutral elders, established cruelty beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 39–40].
Trial Court's Conviction Affirmed; Accused Directed to Surrender
The Court rejected the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s conviction and sentence of 7 years' imprisonment. It also directed the accused to surrender within 14 days and ordered the Registry to send copies of the judgment to the relevant authorities for enforcement of both sentence and compensation [Paras 55–58].
“The monetary compensation though cannot undo the wrong, but would be ‘some solace’ to the victim and their family.” [Para 54]
A Judgment Balancing Retribution and Restitution
This decision marks a significant step in aligning criminal justice with victim-centric principles. By treating the minor son of the deceased as a dependent victim and directing dual compensation mechanisms — one from the convict, and one from the State via the DLSA — the Karnataka High Court has ensured that rehabilitation of survivors is not lost amid punitive measures.
Date of Decision: October 25, 2025
