Supreme Court of India
M. Venkateswaran vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 24 January, 2025
2025 INSC 106 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ SLP Criminal No. 9885 of 2023)
M. Venkateswaran …Appellant (s)
Versus
The State rep. by the Inspector of Police ...Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of
the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal R.C. No. 1017 of
2017. By the said judgment, the High Court, while
confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2025.01.24
498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and
18:43:18 IST
Reason:
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP
1
Act), 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. The sentences were ordered
to run concurrently.
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass.
i) The marriage between the de facto Complainant [PW-
4] and the appellant was solemnized on 31.03.2006. The
marriage lasted all of three days.
ii) On a complaint lodged by the wife [PW-4], a police
report was filed on 23.08.2007 against the appellant, his
father Muthulakshmi Achari (A-2 since deceased) and
brother Marimuthu (A-3). It was alleged that the accused
have committed offences punishable under Section 498A,
406, 420, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act.
iii) The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited
46 documents. The appellant examined himself and marked
2
10 exhibits. The case against A-2, the appellant’s father
abated due to his death pending trial.
iv) The 4th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, vide
judgment dated 22.12.2016, acquitted A-3 Marimuthu from
all the charges. The appellant was also acquitted of the
offence under Section 420 and 506(2) of IPC but was
convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 406,
498A 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 offence under Section 498A IPC. A sentence
of one year SI was imposed for offence under Section 4 of
the DP Act.
v) On appeal, the XVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide
judgment dated 27.06.2017, set aside the conviction under
Section 406 IPC but confirmed the conviction under Section
498A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act and also confirmed
the sentence.
3
vi) On a further challenge in revision, the High Court, by
the impugned order, while confirming the conviction
modified the sentence as indicated hereinabove.
vii) Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.05.2023,
the appellant surrendered. Ultimately, this Court, by order of
11.08.2023, enlarged him on bail.
4. We have heard Mr. M.P. Parthiban, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. D. Kumanan, learned counsel for the
State. We have perused the records of the case.
5. The case revolves primarily around the evidence of
PW-1 (Samuel), PW-4 (Sridevi) – wife/de facto complainant,
PW-7 (Rajamani, mother of PW-4), PW-11
(Gokulakrishnan), the photographer. The High Court has
also relied on the evidence of DW-1 (accused) who examined
himself and also the exhibits marked by him. We have also
made a brief reference to the other witnesses wherever
necessary.
4
6. PW-1 (Samuel) is a family friend of the bride’s (PW-4)
family. He participated in the engagement function held on
03.02.2006. According to him, the bride’s family decided to
give 60 sovereigns of gold for the bride and 10 sovereigns of
gold to the bridegroom. Discounting the hearsay aspect
spoken to by PW-1, the gist of the deposition of PW-1 is that
the family of the appellant did not allow the bride’s brother to
perform the customary practices on the marriage day and
stated that they will allow the same only if 100 sovereigns of
gold is presented. PW-1 further deposed that on the morning
of 02.04.2006 – the day of the reception, the appellant’s
family did not visit the bride’s house. On enquiring, the
appellant’s family informed that only if 100 sovereigns of
gold is presented, they would bring the appellant for the
marriage reception and participate in the marriage function.
Thereafter, it is deposed that though they participated in the
reception, the appellant’s father took the bridegroom with
him from the reception dais on the ground that 100
5
sovereigns of gold were not presented. He further deposed
that his enquiry revealed that suppressing the first marriage in
order to cheat and obtain 100 sovereigns of gold, the
appellant married PW-4. PW-1, in cross-examination,
deposed that it could not be said that the bridegroom’s
demand of dowry, only caused the harassment. Further,
PW-1 deposed that there was no further demand more than
the proposal to present 60 sovereigns of gold to the bride and
15 sovereigns of gold to the bridegroom.
7. PW-2 (Deepa) is the elder sister of PW-4 (Sridevi).
She deposed that 2-3 days after the engagement, the father of
the appellant called her mother and insisted for presenting
100 sovereigns of gold. Subsequently, A-3 called her mother
and apologized for the demand of the father and stated that
the demand was due to the pressure of relatives. Further A-3
informed them that they could continue making marriage
arrangements. She, however, deposed that on 31.03.2006
instead of giving them a warm reception, the appellant’s
6
family insisted on 100 sovereigns of gold. She clearly
deposes that on the day of the reception when her mother
went to invite the couple the appellant refused to come
stating that the bride’s family had not presented 100
sovereigns of gold. According to her, at around 9 PM, during
the reception the father of the appellant called the appellant,
and they went inside a room. Thereafter, she deposed that
the appellant’s father opened the door and told them that they
should have brought 100 sovereigns of gold.
8. The demand by the bridegroom’s family was also
spoken to by Akbar Ali PW-3, who is a family friend of the
bride’s family.
9. PW-4 (Sridevi – wife/de facto-complainant), while
reiterating the demand of the bridegroom’s family, clearly
deposes that the appellant called her over phone and asked as
to whether her mother has accepted the demand of his father.
She further deposes that the appellant stated that he would
come for the marriage reception only if 30 sovereigns of gold
7
and Stridhan were given in advance, over and above the 70
sovereigns of gold already given. When she wept, the
appellant consoled her by saying that he cannot violate the
conditions of his father and brother. PW-4 deposes that
before the marriage reception concluded, the appellant went
out from the reception dais and stood on the left side. The
appellant refused to come up on the dais in spite of her
relatives pleading with him. The appellant, at that point, told
the relatives that after 100 sovereigns are presented, they
could speak about the life of the bride. Thereafter, the
appellant scolded her stating that as she was working in a
company, she was behaving authoritatively. She further
deposed about the accused having contracted an earlier
marriage and also having advertised in May, 2006 for a fresh
alliance.
10. PW-7 Rajamani is the mother of the bride PW-4 Sridevi
and supports the prosecution case and has deposed that the
appellant and his family members had told them that they
8
will participate in the marriage reception only if 100
sovereigns of gold and stridhan articles are presented before
the date of reception. She corroborated the incident that
occurred on the dais at the reception. She states that her
daughter was subjected to severe mental hardship. She
specifically speaks about the appellant insisting for the
further 30 sovereigns.
11. PW-11 (Gokulakrishnan) photographer speaks of the
bridegroom’s family not cooperating on the day of the
marriage even for taking photographs. On enquiries, he was
informed that the ornaments gifted were less than what the
appellant’s family expected.
12. 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.
13. We are satisfied that the ingredients of Section 498-A
of IPC are fully satisfied and that the appellant subjected PW-
4 to harassment with a view to coercing her and her mother to
9
meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and
continued to harass her when PW-4 and her relatives failed to
meet such demand. The ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC
and Section 4 of DP Act are clearly made out.
14. However, we are inclined to interfere with the quantum
of sentence. Today, the appellant stands sentenced to two
years imprisonment for the offence under Section 498-A of
IPC and one year imprisonment for the offence under Section
4 of DP Act, though both sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently. The appellant has undergone approximately 3
months in custody. He was arrested on 02.11.2006. Pending
the trial, he was enlarged on bail on 28.11.2006. Thereafter,
the appellant, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court
surrendered on 13.06.2023 and was enlarged on bail by this
Court on 11.08.2023. Admittedly, the incident pertains to the
year 2006. The marriage was solemnized on 31.03.2006 and
the couple lived together exactly for three days. As noticed
.from the High Court order, the de facto complainant is
10
married and settled abroad. The case has been prolonged for
a period of nearly 19 years. Both the appellant and PW-4
have moved on in life. This Court, while enlarging the
appellant on bail, by its order of 11.08.2023 noticing the
experience of the appellant in the field of information and
technology recorded the following:
“Learned counsel for the State shall ascertain and
explore the possibility of utilizing the experience of the
petitioner an I.T. professional. It is stated that the
petitioner is willing to render appropriate community
service. The State may consider the feasibility of
permitting the petitioner to undertake coaching in such
colleges, institutions and also Government Higher
Secondary Schools which he may be identified on part-
time basis, subject to such honorarium as may be
reasonably given.”It is not clear whether the services were availed but above is a
factor worth noticing while applying the proviso to Section 4
of the DP Act as part of special reasons for imposing a
sentence of less than six months.
11
15. On the special facts of the case, 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 INSC 429). This 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/- (Three lakhs) 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.
16. 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 4th
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
12
Sridevi in view of the harassment which she was subjected bythe appellant. The Trial Court shall ensure that a sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) is disbursed to PW-4 after due
identification. Necessary compliance shall be sent to this
Court within a period of six months. In case compliance is
reported, nothing further needs to be done. However, if the
compliance report is not received, let the appeal be posted for
directions after six months.
17. 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 to PW-4.
13
18. The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand discharged
on the deposit of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs)
in the Trial 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.
…….…………………J.
(K.V. Viswanathan)
.………………………J.
(S.V. N. Bhatti)
New Delhi;
January 24, 2025.
14