Supreme Court Acquits Husband In Dowry And Cruelty Case | Says Allegations Were Vague And Bereft Of Specifics | Misuse Of Section 498A Cannot Be A Tool For Harassment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of an appellant previously held guilty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Division Bench comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma recorded that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the accusations remained unsubstantiated by material evidence.
The apex court observed that the allegations against the appellant lacked specificity and were based solely on the statements of the complainant and her father. The Court further noted that the absence of medical evidence regarding alleged physical assault and miscarriage rendered the claims unproven. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of all charges and setting aside the orders passed by the lower courts.
The case originated from Case Crime No. 60/1999 registered at PS Women Police Station, Lucknow. The complaint dated 20.12.1999 was filed by the wife against her husband(appellant), and his in-laws, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The complainant alleged that her marriage with the appellant took place on 12.02.1997. According to her, the appellant cohabited with her for only 12 days between 08.09.1998 and 20.09.1998. She resigned from her teaching job at St. Thomas School on the appellant’s insistence, and her family spent over Rs. 5 lakhs on the marriage. However, dissatisfaction regarding dowry persisted, and she alleged mental and physical harassment.
The complainant claimed that she was forced to consume milk mixed with narcotic or alcoholic substances and to attend social gatherings where alcohol was served. She also alleged that the appellant’s family conspired to kill her and kept her in a separate house under their control. An alleged incident of physical assault occurred on 23.09.1998, witnessed by her father, where she was allegedly assaulted with kicks and punches and expelled from the matrimonial home while pregnant.
Further, the complainant alleged that on 10.02.1998, the appellant and his family forcefully ousted her again, causing her to fall and suffer a miscarriage. Despite several reconciliation attempts, including through the Family Counselling Centre until 16.12.1999, the situation remained unresolved, leading to the lodging of the formal complaint.
In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, the complainant reiterated these allegations and introduced for the first time that she was forced to take up employment at St. Fidelis School, Aliganj, where her entire salary was allegedly taken by her in-laws.
During the trial, the complainant and her father were examined as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively. While both deposed about a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs and harassment, they could not substantiate the allegations of physical assault with medical evidence. The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 28.08.2004, noted that no medical records or injury reports were filed, and no credible evidence was presented to substantiate the claim of a miscarriage due to physical assault.
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant under Sections 323 r/w 34 and 506 IPC but convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, sentencing him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000 and one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000, respectively.
The appellant’s Criminal Appeal No. 88/2024 was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow on 18.11.2004, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The subsequent Criminal Revision No. 612/2004 filed before the High Court was also dismissed on 14.11.2018. A recall application against the same was rejected on 28.11.2018.
The Supreme Court analysed the statutory provisions of Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court observed that "in order to meet the threshold of the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961, the allegations cannot be ambiguous or made in thin air."
The Court noted that the allegations by the complainant were "vague, omnibus and bereft of any material particulars to substantiate this threshold." The complainant did not provide specific instances, dates, times, or places of the alleged harassment. No medical documentation was presented to prove either the miscarriage or any injuries suffered.
The Supreme Court further recorded that apart from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, "there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of harassment and acts of cruelty within the scope of Section 498A of IPC, and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961." The Court also stated that the FIR was registered after the appellant filed a divorce petition on 06.02.1999, casting doubt on the genuineness of the complaint.
The Bench critically remarked on the misuse of Section 498A IPC, recording that "the term 'cruelty' is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least." Citing Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors v. State of Telangana & Anr., the Court observed, "Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution."
The Court concluded that the High Court, while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, failed to scrutinize the correctness of the Trial Court’s decision adequately. The absence of incriminating material warranted the setting aside of the conviction.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and recorded the following directions:
- "The Order dated 14.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 612/2004 convicting the Appellant under Section 498A of IPC & Section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of all the charges."
- "Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Ruchil Raj, Advocate
Case Title: XXXX vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 671
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2353-54 of 2019
Bench: Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
