Supreme Court Directs Husband To Pay Rs. 3 Lakh Compensation To Wife For Harassment Over Dowry Demands
Pranav B Prem
The Supreme Court has directed a husband to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation to his estranged wife for subjecting her to harassment through unlawful demands for gold sovereigns as dowry. The Court upheld the husband’s conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), while modifying his sentence to the period already undergone.
The court observed-“We hold that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act is sustained. The sentence imposed is set aside and substituted with that of the period already undergone and we further direct that the appellant shall deposit in the 4 th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai (the Trial Court) a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) within a period of four weeks, which shall be paid as compensation to PW-4 in view of the harassment which she was subjected by the appellant.”
Background of the Case
The appellant’s marriage with the de facto complainant (wife) was solemnized on March 31, 2006, but lasted only three days. The wife alleged that the appellant and his family harassed her with excessive demands for dowry, including 100 sovereigns of gold, and subjected her to mental anguish. A police report was filed in 2007, charging the appellant, his father, and his brother under various provisions, including Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment under Section 498A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the DP Act. The Sessions Court later set aside the conviction under Section 406 IPC but upheld the other convictions and sentences. The Madras High Court further reduced the sentence under Section 498A IPC to two years while confirming the convictions.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti noted that the marriage endured only briefly and that the case had been prolonged for nearly 19 years. Both parties had since moved on in life, with the complainant reportedly remarried and settled abroad. The Court observed:
Concurrent Convictions: The Bench upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, Sessions Court, and High Court regarding the appellant’s culpability under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It emphasized the overwhelming evidence of harassment and dowry demands presented during the trial. In view of the overwhelming evidence, the Supreme Court held, “we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act.”
Prolonged Case Timeline: Considering the significant passage of time since the incident and the limited period of cohabitation between the couple, the Court found it appropriate to modify the sentence.
Compensation in Lieu of Extended Imprisonment: Drawing from the precedent set in Samaul Sk. v. State of Jharkhand (2021), the Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation to the complainant. This measure, the Court held, would address the harm caused by the appellant’s actions while balancing the interests of justice.
Key Directions by the Court
The Supreme Court’s judgment included the following directions:
The appellant’s conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act was confirmed.
The sentence of imprisonment was modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.
The appellant was ordered to deposit Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation in the Trial Court within four weeks, to be disbursed to the complainant upon proper identification.
Non-compliance with the compensation directive would result in the dismissal of the appeal and require the appellant to serve the remaining sentence.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, the Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 21.06.2022 in Criminal R.C. No. 1017 of 2017 is set aside. While the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act are confirmed, the sentence is modified. The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) within a period of four weeks in the Trial Court as compensation as directed hereinabove, to be payable.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: M. Venkateswaran v. The State
Case No: SLP Criminal No. 9885 of 2023
Date: January-24-2025
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
[Read/Download order]
