Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. VISWANATHAN, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
M. Venkateswaran – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2025 [SLP Criminal No. 9885 of 2023]
Decided On : 24-01-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 485] – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 4 – Cruelty and dowry offence – Conviction and sentence – Ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC are fully satisfied – Appellant subjected De facto complainant to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet unlawful demand for gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when victim and her relatives failed to meet such demand – Ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out – However, Court inclined to interfere with quantum of sentence – Appellant has undergone approximately three months in custody – Incident pertains to year 2006 – De facto complainant is married and settled abroad – Case has been prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years – Both appellant and De facto complainant have moved on in life – While conviction of appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are confirmed, sentence modified – Appellant sentenced to period already undergone and further directed to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of four weeks in Trial Court as compensation to De facto complainant. (Paras 13, 14, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal calls in question correctness of judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal R.C. No. 1017 of 2017. By said judgment, High Court, while confirming conviction of appellant under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, modified sentence from three years imprisonment to two years imprisonment under Section 498A of IPC. A sentence of one year imprisonment was imposed for offence under Section 4 of DP Act. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Findings of Court:
Bail bonds of appellant shall stand discharged on deposit of amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in Trial Court. In case if appellant fails to deposit the said sum within time stipulated, this appeal will be treated as dismissed and the appellant shall surrender to undergo remaining sentence.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal R.C. No. 1017 of 2017. By the said judgment, the High Court, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act), modified the sentence from three years imprisonment to two years imprisonment under Section 498A of IPC. A sentence of one year imprisonment was imposed for offence under Section 4 of the DP Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass:
(ii) On a complaint lodged by the wife [PW-4], a police report was filed on 23.08.2007 against the appellant, his father Muthulakshmi Achari (A-2 since deceased) and brother Marimuthu (A-3). It was alleged that the accused have committed offences punishable under Section 498A, 406, 420, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act.
(iii) The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 46 documents. The appellant examined himself and marked 10 exhibits. The case against A-2, the appellant’s father abated due to his death pending trial.
(iv) The 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, vide judgment dated 22.12.2016, acquitted A-3 Marimuthu from all the charges. The appellant was also acquitted of the offence under Section 420 and 506(2) of IPC but was convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 406, 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. The trial Court sentenced him to three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for offence under Section 498A IPC. A sentence of one year SI was imposed for offence under Section 4 of the DP Act.
(v) On appeal, the XVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 27.06.2017, set aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC but confirmed the conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act and also confirmed the sentence.
(vi) On a further challenge in revision, the High Court, by the impugned order, while confirming the conviction modified the sentence as indicated hereinabove.
(vii) Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.05.2023, the appellant surrendered. Ultimately, this Court, by order of 11.08.2023, enlarged him on bail.
4. We have heard Mr. M.P. Parthiban, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Kumanan, learned counsel for the State. We have perused the records of the case.
5. The case revolves primarily around the evidence of PW-1 (Samuel), PW-4 (Sridevi)- wife/de facto complainant, PW-7 (Rajamani, mother of PW-4), PW-11 (Gokulakrishnan), the photographer. The High Court has also relied on the evidence of DW-1 (accused) who examined himself and also the exhibits marked by him. We have also made a brief reference to the other witnesses wherever necessary.
6. PW-1 (Samuel) is a family friend of the bride’s (PW-4) family. He participated in the engagement function held on 03.02.2006. According to him, the bride’s family decided to give 60 sovereigns of gold for the bride and 10 sovereigns of gold to the bridegroom. Discounting the hearsay aspect spoken to by PW-1, the gist of the deposition of PW-1 is that the family of the appellant did not allow the bride’s brother to perform the customary practices on the marriage day and stated that they will allow the same only if 100 sovereigns of gold is presented. PW-1 further deposed that on the morning of 02.04.2006 - the day of the reception, the appellant’s family did not visit the bride’s house. On enquiring, the appellant’s family informed that only if 100 sovereigns of gold is presented, they would bring the appellant for the marriage reception and participate in the marriage function. Thereafter, it is deposed that though they participated
Cruelty and dowry offence – Accused can get benefit of mitigating circumstances accruing due to long lapse of time.
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
The main legal point established is that a demand for money can be considered a form of torture rather than a dowry demand, and evidence of mental and physical cruelty can lead to conviction under Se....
Court upheld concurrent findings of guilt for cruelty and dowry demands, establishing that evidence supported claims of harassment, thereby affirming the conviction under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Ac....
Criminal Law - Cruelty and Murder - Conviction modified - Court is led to affirm finding of guilt of accused for commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC
The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of guilt under section 498-A of the IPC based on the evidence of cruelty and the reduction of the sentence to the period already un....
Conviction under Section 498-A IPC cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone; direct proof of sustained cruelty or harassment is essential.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
