Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on January 24, 2025, upheld the conviction of an IT professional for subjecting his wife to dowry harassment but reduced his sentence of two years imprisonment to the period already undergone and directed him to pay Rs three lakh compensation to her.

A bench of Justices K V Vishwanathan and S V N Bhatti noted the incident of the year 2006 where the marriage was solemnised on March 31, 2006, and the couple lived together exactly for three days.

The court also noted the high court order recorded that the de facto complainant was married and settled abroad and the case had been prolonged for a period of nearly 19 years. Both the appellant and the complainant had moved on in life.

Appellant M Venkateswara challenged the Madras High Court's order of June 21, 2022, which confirmed his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 but modified the sentence from three years imprisonment to two years imprisonment under Section 498A of IPC. A sentence of one year imprisonment was imposed for offence under Section 4 of the DP Act.

It was alleged the appellant had demanded 100 sovereigns of gold in the marriage.

After examining the statements of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, her mother and others, the bench said, "In view of the overwhelming evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act."

The bench felt satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC were fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected the complainant to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued to harass her when she and her relatives failed to meet such demand.

The appellant had undergone approximately three months in custody. He was arrested on November 02, 2006. Pending the trial, he was enlarged on bail on November 28, 2006. Thereafter, the appellant, pursuant to the judgment of the high court surrendered on June 13, 2023 and was enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court on August 11, 2023.

Considering the special facts of the case, the bench felt, "We think the ends of justice will be met if we adopt the course followed by this Court in the case of Samaul Sk Vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr (2021)."

The bench pointed out that the top court, in that case, while reducing the sentence to that of the period already undergone recorded the voluntary offer of the appellant to pay a monetary compensation of Rs 3,00,000 to the de facto complainant for the benefit of her children.

"No doubt in the present case, there is no voluntary offer, but we propose to direct payment of compensation," the bench said.

After sustaining the conviction, the court modified the sentence and directed the appellant to pay Rs three lakh to complainant Sridevi within a period of four weeks, by depositing the money in a Chennai court.

"In case if the appellant fails to deposit the said sum within the time stipulated, this appeal will be treated as dismissed and the appellant shall surrender to undergo the remaining sentence," the bench said.

Case Title: M Venkateswaran Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police