LexM. VENKATESWARAN versus THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.