M. VENKATESWARANversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 231 : 2025 INSC 106

                         M. Venkateswaran
                                  v.
              The State rep. by the Inspector of Police
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 379 of 2025)
                               24 January 2025
             [K.V. Viswanathan* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the modification of sentence imposed for offence
       u/s.498A IPC and s.4 of the DP Act and payment of compensation
       to the wife-de facto complainant.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 –
       s.4 – Dowry demand – Unlawful demand for the gold
       sovereigns and continued harassment meted out to the
       girl-wife on failure to meet the said demand – Complaint by
       the wife against her husband and in-laws alleging offences
       punishable u/ss.498A, 406, 420, 506(2) IPC and s.4 of the
       DP Act – Conviction of the husband for offence u/s.498A
       IPC and s.4 of the DP Act and and sentenced to three
       years imprisonment and fine for offence u/s.498A, and one
       year SI for offence u/s.4 of the DP Act – High Court, while
       confirming the conviction, modified the sentence from three
       years imprisonment to two years imprisonment u/s.498A and
       sentence of one year imprisonment for offence u/s.4 of the
       DP Act – Interference with:
       Held: In view of the evidence, interferance with the concurrent
       conviction u/ss.498A IPC and s.4 of the DP Act, not called for –
       Ingredients of s.498-A fully satisfied – Husband subjected the
       wife to harassment with a view to coerce her and her mother to
       meet the unlawful demand for the gold sovereigns and continued
       to harass her when the wife and her relatives failed to meet such
       demand – Ingredients of s.498-A IPC and s.4 DP Act clearly
       made out – However, the quantum of sentence is interfered
       with – Sentence imposed is set aside – Husband sentenced to
       the period already undergone directing him to pay a sum of three


* Author
232                                                              [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       lakhs within the stipulated period in the trial court as compensation,
       to be payable to the wife, since the husband has undergone
       approximately 3 months in custody, the couple lived together
       exactly for three days, the de facto complainant-wife is married
       and settled abroad, the case is pending for nearly 19 years, both
       the parties have moved on in life, and the husband is willing to
       render appropriate community service in the field of information
       and technology. [Paras 12-18]

                                Case Law Cited
       Samaul Sk. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 INSC
       429 – relied on.

                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

                                List of Keywords
       Modification of sentence; Payment of compensation to wife-de
       facto complainant; Dowry demand; Unlawful demand for gold
       sovereigns; Continued harassment meted out to girl on failure to
       meet dowry demand; Three years imprisonment u/s.498A IPC;
       Two years imprisonment u/s.498A IPC; One year imprisonment
       for offence u/s.4 of the DP Act; Ingredients of s.498-A IPC; Couple
       lived together for three days; Case pending for 19 years; Render
       community service in the field of information and technology.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       379 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2022 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in CRLRC No. 1017 of 2017

                           Appearances for Parties
       M.P. Parthiban, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam,
       Alagiri K, P.V.K. Deivendran, Advs. for the Appellant.
       D. Kumanan, Ms. Deepa S, Sheikh F Kalia, Veshal Tyagi,
       Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Advs. for the
       Respondent.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          233

     M. Venkateswaran v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 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 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and
     Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP 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 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
234                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


              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.
       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.
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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                      235

     M. Venkateswaran v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police


     from the reception dais on the ground that 100 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 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 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
236                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 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.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                               237

     M. Venkateswaran v. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police


     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 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.
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
238                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Sridevi in view of the harassment which she was subjected by the
       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.
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.

       Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain