Dowry Harassment Case: Delhi Court Acquits Scientist, Flags “Classic Misuse of S.498A IPC”
Delhi's Dwarka Court set aside the 2023 conviction of scientist Mukhtiar Singh and his brother in a Section 498A IPC case, citing lack of evidence, contradictions, and misuse of the law
Car theft case: Court holds MCD and contractor responsible, orders FIR for negligence
In a judgment that underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach toward Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Dwarka District Court has set aside the conviction of Mukhtiar Singh, a scientist recognized among the world’s top 2% by Stanford University, and his brother Satender Pratap Singh, an Indian Railways official.
The two were earlier sentenced by a Mahila Court in 2023 to one year’s imprisonment and fines for alleged cruelty and dowry-related harassment against Singh’s wife, Anupama Chandra.
The judgment, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shivali Bansal on August 29, 2025, overturned the trial court’s findings, citing insufficient evidence, inconsistencies in testimonies, and failure to meet the essential legal ingredients required under Section 498A IPC.
The case traces back to Singh’s 2003 marriage to Chandra. Within months, marital discord erupted. The wife alleged she was subjected to repeated demands for a flat in Delhi and later Rs. 20 lakh, coupled with threats and physical abuse. She eventually left the matrimonial home in March 2005, retaining custody of their son.
In 2007, Chandra lodged her first complaint with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Nanakpura, leading to the registration of FIR No. 106/2008 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The case lingered for over a decade, culminating in a conviction by the Mahila Court in July 2023, which sentenced both brothers to imprisonment and fines payable to the complainant.
In their appeal, the Singh brothers argued that the trial court relied solely on “vague, general, and omnibus allegations” from interested witnesses, namely, the complainant and her family; without any independent corroboration.
They emphasized that the only neutral witness, Gulab Singh, categorically denied any dowry demand before, during, or after the marriage. Moreover, despite allegations of severe physical abuse, Chandra never lodged contemporaneous police complaints, sought medical care, or produced documentary evidence of injuries.
The defense further claimed that the case was “an abuse of criminal law to settle matrimonial scores” and accused the complainant’s family of attempting to coerce Singh into relocating permanently to Delhi, closer to her parental home.
Chandra and her family maintained that the cruelty was persistent and well-documented. Testimonies highlighted incidents where Singh allegedly denied her medicines during pregnancy, attempted to coerce an abortion, and demanded large sums of money. On one Diwali, her parents claimed Singh demanded Rs. 20 lakh and insulted them when they refused.
The prosecution produced 12 witnesses, including family members, neighbors, and jewellers, to corroborate her claims. The Mahila Court had previously found this evidence sufficient for conviction.
The ASJ however, ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of Section 498A, namely, willful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or grave injury, or harassment linked to unlawful dowry demands.
The Court noted that:
1. No independent witness corroborated the allegations of dowry demand.
2. Testimonies from the complainant’s family contained contradictions and appeared “improvised.”
3. The complainant, a government employee with access to legal remedies, never lodged timely complaints or sought medical evidence despite alleging repeated assaults.
“The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt,” the judgment stated, emphasizing that criminal conviction cannot rest on uncorroborated, contradictory testimonies.
The Court termed this case is a "classic example of misuse of provision of Section 498A IPC."
"In the present case, it is clear that ‘cruelty’ is not enough to constitute the offence. It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. In the present case, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the existence of such cruelty. The prosecution could not also establish that respondent no. 2 was subjected to cruelty to meet unlawful dowry demands, as the same has been disputed by independent witness PW6," the ASJ observed.
Conclusively, the Court held, "For the abovesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. Resultantly, impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2023 and impugned order on sentence dated 25.10.2023 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court-01), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in case bearing FIR No. 106/08 of PS Nanakpura, are set aside and appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Satender Partap Singh are acquitted in the said case. Appellants are directed to furnish bonds in terms of Section 437A CrPC (481 BNSS) in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each before Ld. Trial/Successor Court within one week from today."
Case Title: Mukhtiyar Singh & Another Vs. State & Another.
Judgment Date: August 29, 2025
Bench: ASJ Shivangi Chauhan