M. VENKATESWARAN VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 2025 LIVELAW (SC) 117

BENCH: Justice K.V. Viswanathan & Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

FACTS:

This case arose around the marriage between the de-facto complainant and the appellant in this case. Their marriage was solemnized on 31/03/2006. The marriage between the two only lasted for a period of three days. On a complaint filed by the wife, a police report was submitted on August 23, 2007, against the appellant, his father Muthulakshmi Achari, and his brother Marimuthu. The complaint alleged that the accused had committed offenses under Sections 498A (cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act). The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and presented 46 documents as evidence. The appellant also testified in his defense and submitted 10 exhibits.

During the trial, the case against the appellant’s father was abated due to his death. The Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Saidapet delivered its judgment on December 22, 2016. In the judgment, the appellant’s brother Marimuthu was acquitted of all charges. The appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420 and 506(2) of the IPC but was convicted under Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. He was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and fined Rs. 3,000 for the offense under Section 498A. Additionally, he received a one-year simple imprisonment sentence for the offense under Section 4 of the DP Act.

On appeal, the XVth Additional Sessions Judge, on June 27, 2017, overturned the conviction under Section 406 IPC but upheld the convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, along with the associated sentences. Further, the appellant challenged this in revision before the High Court. The High Court, while confirming the convictions, modified the sentences, providing some relief to the appellant.

Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, the appellant surrendered as per the order dated May 15, 2023. Subsequently, on August 11, 2023, the Court granted him bail. 

ISSUES:

The main issue in the case is whether the appellant is entitled to a lowering of the sentence which was decided in the trial court.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The appellant's conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act is upheld, but the sentence is modified to the period already served. The appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- in the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, within four weeks, as compensation to the wife, for the harassment she endured. The Trial Court must ensure the amount is disbursed to the wife after proper identification and submit a compliance report to this Court within six months. If compliance is reported, no further action is needed; otherwise, the appeal will be listed for directions. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant's bail bonds will be discharged upon depositing Rs. 3,00,000/- in the Trial Court. Failure to deposit within the stipulated time will result in the appeal being dismissed, and the appellant must surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

The court identified that the case centres on the testimonies of Samuel (PW-1), the wife (PW-4), and others. Samuel stated that during the engagement, the bride’s family planned to give 60 sovereigns of gold, but the appellant’s family demanded 100 sovereigns, causing delays and disruptions to the marriage proceedings. On the reception day, the groom was taken from the dais due to unmet demands. Samuel also alleged that the appellant concealed his first marriage to deceive the wife and obtain dowry. In cross-examination, Samuel acknowledged that harassment was not solely due to the gold demand.

The Court also noted that PW-2 (Deepa), the wife’s elder sister, testified that shortly after the engagement, the appellant’s father demanded 100 sovereigns of gold, but A-3 later apologized, attributing the demand to family pressure, and asked them to proceed with the wedding plans. However, on March 31, 2006, the appellant’s family reiterated the demand for 100 sovereigns, disrupting the reception. Deepa stated that the appellant refused to join the reception, and his father insisted on the gold. Akbar Ali (PW-3), a family friend, corroborated the demands made by the groom’s family. PW-7 (Rajamani), the bride’s mother, supported the prosecution, stating that the appellant and his family demanded 100 sovereigns of gold and stridhan articles, refusing to participate in the reception without them. She corroborated the disruptions during the reception and testified that her daughter faced severe mental hardship, with the appellant insisting on an additional 30 sovereigns. PW-11 (Gokulakrishnan), the photographer, confirmed the groom’s family’s non-cooperation on the wedding day, attributing it to dissatisfaction with the gifted ornaments.

The overwhelming evidence of the prosecution against the appellant was noted and lead to the decision of the court. 

ANALYSIS:

This case centers on the appellant’s conviction for dowry-related harassment, with his wife (PW-4) and other witnesses providing consistent testimony of his demands for 100 sovereigns of gold, which caused disruptions during the marriage and mental distress for the wife. Witnesses such as the wife’s family members (PW-2, PW-7) and a photographer (PW-11) corroborated these claims, detailing the appellant’s refusal to participate in the wedding reception until his dowry demands were met. The trial court initially sentenced the appellant to three years for cruelty and one year for violating the Dowry Prohibition Act, a decision upheld by the High Court with a slight modification to the sentence.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction but modified the sentence, substituting it with the time already served. Additionally, the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to his wife for the distress caused. This decision reflects the Court's balance between ensuring deterrence for dowry-related offenses and providing the appellant some relief for the time already spent in detention, while also ensuring the wife received appropriate restitution for her suffering.