Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant-husband's concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for demanding additional gold sovereigns around a marriage that lasted three days, but, given the 19-year delay and both parties having moved on, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and directed him to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 called for interference.
- Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment under Section 498A IPC and one year under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should be reduced on the facts.
Provisions considered
- Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860On the evidence of the complainant, her mother, sister, family friends and the photographer about the repeated demand for 100 sovereigns of gold and the appellant's conduct at the reception, the Court found that he harassed the wife to coerce her and her mother to meet an unlawful demand and continued the harassment when it was not met, so the ingredients of cruelty were made out. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Section 4 and its proviso, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Conviction for demanding dowry was upheld; the Court treated the appellant's offer to render community service, noted in its bail order, together with the age of the case, as matters relevant to special reasons under the proviso for imposing a sentence below the minimum of six months. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 16)
Held
- In view of the overwhelming and consistent evidence of a demand for additional gold sovereigns made before and at the marriage reception, and of the appellant's refusal to join the reception until it was met, the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act did not warrant interference. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Harassment of the wife aimed at coercing her and her mother to meet an unlawful demand for gold, continued after they failed to meet it, satisfies the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. (¶ 13)
- On sentence, the Court took into account that the incident was of 2006, the couple lived together for only three days, the case had been pending for nearly 19 years, the complainant had remarried and settled abroad, and the appellant had offered community service; these were treated as special reasons under the proviso to Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act for a sentence below six months. (¶ 14)
- Following the course adopted in Samaul Sk. v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and, though there was no voluntary offer, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the complainant for the harassment she suffered. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act confirmed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone, subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 3,00,000 in the trial court within four weeks for payment to the complainant; bail bonds discharged on deposit; if not deposited, the appeal stands dismissed and the appellant must surrender to serve the remaining sentence; compliance report within six months.