Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against Madras High Court’s decision, whereby the accused person’s conviction for offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act), was confirmed, the Division Bench of KV Viswanathan* and SVN Bhatti, JJ. partly allowed the appeal, while sustaining the conviction for the offences mentioned above. However, the Bench set aside the High Court’s decision to the extent of imposing and modifying the sentence, considering that the case went along for nearly 19 years and that the accused had already undergone custody for three months.
Background
The former wife filed a complaint against her husband, father-in-law, and brother-in-law for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. The Trial Court acquitted the brother-in-law of all the charges and also acquitted the husband-accused of the offence under Section 420 and 506(2) of IPC but was convicted for the offence under Section 406, 498-A of the 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 an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. A sentence of one year of simple imprisonment was imposed for an offence under Section 4 of the DP Act.
On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 406 of the IPC but confirmed the conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act and confirmed the sentence. The High Court, vide the impugned decision, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence from three years imprisonment to two years imprisonment under Section 498-A of the IPC. A sentence of one-year imprisonment was imposed for an offence under Section 4 of the DP Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Analysis and Decision
The Court referred to a witness’s statement who is a family friend of the bride. The Court noted that in the engagement function, the bride’s family decided to give 60 sovereigns of gold to the bride and 10 sovereigns of gold to the groom/ accused, however, the family of the accused did not allow the bride’s brother to perform the customary practices on the marriage day and stated that they would allow the same only if 100 sovereigns of gold were presented. It was also deposed that though they participated in the reception, the father-in-law took the accused with him from the reception dais on the ground that 100 sovereigns of gold were not presented.
The elder sister of the wife also deposed that after the engagement, the father-in-law called her mother and insisted on presenting 100 sovereigns of gold. The Court also perused the wife’s statement, whereby it was deposed that the accused-husband called her and asked whether her mother had accepted the demand of his father. The Court also noted that the accused went down from the reception dais and refused to come despite her relatives pleading with him. It was also deposed that this was the accused’s second marriage and the fact of the first marriage was concealed. The mother of the complainant-wife had also stated that her daughter was subjected to severe mental hardship and the accused insisted on asking for a further 30 sovereigns of gold, as 70 were already given.
The photographer also stated that the husband’s family was not cooperating on the day of the marriage even for the photographs. Hence, considering the said evidence, the Court refused to interfere with the conviction under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act.
KK The Court held that the ingredients of Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act were fully satisfied and that the accused subjected the wife to harassment to coerce her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when her relatives failed to meet such demand.
However, the Court considered that the marriage was solemnized on 31-03-2006 and the couple lived together exactly for three days and the complainant-former wife was now married and settled abroad. The Court said that the case had been prolonged for nearly 19 years and both of them had moved on in life.
The Court also referred to the order dated 11-08-2023, granting bail to the accused noticing his experience in the field of information and technology and it was directed that the State shall ascertain and explore the possibility of utilizing the experience of the petitioner as an I.T. professional. Therefore, the Court set aside the sentence imposed considering the period already undergone and directed that the accused shall deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- within a period of four weeks, which shall be paid as compensation to the former wife in view of the harassment which she was subjected to.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
